Gitlow v. People of the State of New York’s Empirical Analysis
268 U.S. 652 · 1925
Citation profile
326 federal appellate · 119 district · 548 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,695 later decisions (216 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably In the Matter of Samuel Winship (1970), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
326 federal appellate · 119 district · 548 state decisions — followed in 44 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Meyer v. State of Nebraska · Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Schenck v. United States · Albert Twining v. State of New Jersey
Cited together with Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Near v. State of Minnesota Olson · Whitney v. People of State of California · Schenck v. United States · Stromberg v. People of State of California
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1,695 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is a fundamental principle, long established, that the freedom of speech and of the press which is secured by the Constitution, does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish, without responsibility, whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled license that gives immunity for' every possible use of language and prevents the punishment . of those who abuse this freedom. 2 Story on the Constitution (5th Ed.) § 1580, p.) 634; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 ,',; 281, 17 S.Ct. 326 , 41 L.Ed. 715 ; Patter-, son v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 , 27 S.Ct. 556 , 51 L.Ed. 879 , 10 Ann.Cas. 689; Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273, 276 , 35 S.Ct. 383 , 59 L.Ed. 573 ; Schenck v. .United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 , 39 S.Ct. 247 , 63 L.Ed. 470 ; Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204, 206 , 39 S.Ct. 249 , 63 L.Ed. 561 ; Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211, 213 , 39 S.Ct. 252 , 63 L.Ed. 566 ; Schaefer v. United States, 251 U.S. 466, 474 , 40 S.Ct. 259 , 64 L.Ed.' 360; Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U.S. 325, 332 , 41 S.Ct. 125 , 65 L.Ed. 287 ; Warren v. United States, 106 C.C.A. 156 , 183 F. >18, 721, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 800. Reasonably limited, it was said by Story in the passage cited, this freedom is an inestimable privilege in a free government; without such limitation, it might become the scourge of the republic. “That a State in the exercise of its police power may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to corrupt pub”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“fundamental personal rights and liberties,”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Horn v. Kean · Hood v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.