Baker v. Bindner’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 6 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 1988 · most notably Ricks v. District of Columbia (1968), Alegata v. Commonwealth (1967)
15 federal appellate · 6 district · 11 state decisions
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)
Relies on Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Dombrowski v. Pfister · Thornhill v. Alabama · Brown v. Board of Education
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To us it appears overbroad and vague. We do not believe that the requirement that an offender ‘give a satisfactory account of himself’ passes constitutional tests. It places sole determination in the discretion of the policeman on the beat. The standard of ‘satisfactory account’ is not certain, for what may be satisfactory to one may be unsatisfactory to another Does the mere fact that one cannot give a satisfactory account of himself to the pleasure of the inquiring officer make him guilty of an unspecified crime? Such unbridled discretion cannot be constitutionally vested in the policeman or the court.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This statute is a ‘catch all' not specific in expression as to what it really seeks to prohibit nor what type of conduct is violative of the prohibition. Perhaps such was its aim and intent; that it snare those felt to be ‘vaguely undesirable * * * ’ * * * It does not give fair notice; it is arbitrary as to its standards and is grossly susceptible of overreaching federal constitutional guarantees by lending itself for ready use by officials against those deemed to merit their displeasure. * * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An examination of [the ordinance] can leave no doubt that it is broader than that condemned by the [United States] Supreme Court both in Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 at 238 , 83 S.Ct. 680 at 685 , 9 L.Ed.2d 697 [1963] and in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 , 69 S.Ct. 894 , 93 L.Ed. 1131 [1949], It leaves to the executive and judicial branches too wide a discretion in the application of the law and too readily permits them to make a crime out of what is protected activity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.