Whitney v. People of State of California’s Empirical Analysis
274 U.S. 357 · 1927
Citation profile
403 federal appellate · 154 district · 462 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,858 later decisions (401 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2025 · most notably Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Younger v. Harris (1971)
403 federal appellate · 154 district · 462 state decisions — followed in 40 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. A case is still cited after being overruled — to note the reversal, distinguish it, or in dissent. 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 Connally v. General Construction Co. · Meyer v. State of Nebraska · Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Same · Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.
Cited together with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gitlow v. People of the State of New York · Thornhill v. Alabama · Schenck v. United States · Near v. State of Minnesota Olson
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 1,858 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
107 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is settled by repeated decisions of this court that the equal protection clause does not take from a state the power to classify in the adoption of police laws, but admits of the exercise of a wide scope of discretion, and avoids what is done only when it is without any reasonable basis and therefore is purely arbitrary; and that one who assails the classification must carry the burden of showing that it does not rest upon any reasonable basis, but is essentially abritrary. !i' * * “A statute does not violate the equal protection clause merely because it is not all-embracing. * * * A state may properly direct its legislation against what it deems an existing evil without covering the whole field of possible abuses. * * * . The statute must be presumed to be aimed at an evil where experience shows it to be most felt, and to be deemed by the legislature coextensive with the practical need; and [it] is not to be overthrown merely because other instances may be suggested to which also it might have been applied; that being a matter for the legislature to determine unless the ease is very clear. * *> « And it is not open to objection unless the classification is so lacking in any adequate or reasonable basis as to preclude the assumption that it was made in the exercise of the legislative judgment and discretion. * * * ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'Whenever the fundamental rights of free speech . . . are alleged to have been invaded, it must remain open to a defendant to present the issue whether there actually did exist at the time a clear danger; whether the danger, if any, was imminent; and whether the evil apprehended was one so substantial as to justify the stringent restriction interposed by the legislature.'”
4 later decisions 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.