286 So. 2d 4 - Bradshaw v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently November 2011 · most notably 76 So. 3d 991 - Maestas v. State (2011), Yniguez
5 federal appellate · 18 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
Relies on Colten v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · Feiner v. People of State of New York · Johnson v. Florida · In Re Fuller · 237 So. 2d 139 - Smith v. State
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is axiomatic that a decision of a federal trial court, while persuasive if well-reasoned, is not by any means binding on the courts of a State”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Yniguez v. Arizona · Maria-Kelly F. Yniguez Jaime P. Gutierrez v. State of Arizona, Robert D. Parks Arizonans for Official English, Applicants in Intervention-Appellants. Maria-Kelly F. Yniguez Jaime P. Gutierrez v. Rose Mofford, Individually and as Governor of the State of Arizona Robert Corbin, Individually and as Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Robert D. Parks Arizonans for Official English, Applicants in Intervention-Appellees“"Furthermore, we are not as confident as Appellant that when and if the exact question of the constitutionality vel non of Section 877.03 is decided by the Supreme Court of the United States it will be found unconstitutional. Florida Courts in recent years have upheld statutes employing general language similar in nature to the language in Section 877.03, and these decisions have not been overturned by the nation's highest court." [3]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the disorderly conduct statute came into operation only when defendant [Bradshaw's] interest in expression, judged in the light of all the relevant factors, was `miniscule' compared to the particular public interest in preventing that expression or conduct.”
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.