281 F. Supp. 280 - Buttny v. Smiley’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 2009 · most notably Esteban v. Central Missouri State College (1969), 287 F. Supp. 535 - Grossner v. Trustees of Columbia University in City of NY (1968)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 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 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Connally v. General Construction Co. · Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange Cty. · Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education · McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education · Baines v. City of Danville, Virginia
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We agree with the students that the doctrine of ‘In Loco Parentis’ is no longer tenable in a university community; and we believe that there is a trend to reject the authority of university officials to regulate ‘off-campus’ activity of students. However, that is not to say that conduct disruptive of good order on the campus should not properly lead to disciplinary action. “We do not subscribe to the notion that a citizen surrenders his civil rights upon enrollment as a student in a university. (citations omitted) As a corollary to this, enrollment does not give him a right to immunity nor special consideration, and certainly it does not give him the right to violate the constitutional rights of others.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Plaintiffs contended that the action of the University officials had a “chilling” effect on the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. What they said on the occasion in question is not the basis for the disciplinary proceedings; it is what they did. We hold that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, as it is related to plaintiffs’ activities here, does not give them the right to prevent lawful access to campus facilities. We have been unable to find any case that holds that active, aggressive physical action may properly be characterized by the courts as free speech.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Once the facts have been found by the disciplinary body and the guilt has been established, punishment is then a matter of judgment and discretion within the recognized limits. Our only inquiry here relating to the punishment imposed is: “Is the punishment meted out within accepted limits, and, if it is, did the authorities act arbitrarily or capriciously?””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.