State v. Moyle’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Long v. State (1996), State v. Gattis (1986)
30 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 18 U.S.C. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000) · 18 U.S.C. § 875
Relies on Palko v. State of Connecticut · Gooding v. Wilson · Watts v. United States · Gitlow v. People of the State of New York · Rogers v. United States
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right. "”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The statute, as written, requires neither proof of a specific intent to carry out the threat nor of any present ability to do so. However, the elementsactual alarm and the reasonableness of the alarm under the circumstanceshave a similar purpose and effect. These elements limit the reach of the statute to threats which are so unambiguous, unequivocal and specific to the addressee that they convincingly express to the addressee the intention that they will be carried out. [ Moyle, 299 Or.] at 703-04, 705 P.2d 740 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[A]rticle I, section 8, prohibits lawmakers from enacting restrictions that focus on the content of speech or writing either because that content itself is deemed socially undesirable or offensive, or because it is thought to have adverse consequences. * * * [L]aws must focus on proscribing the pursuit or accomplishment of forbidden results rather than on the suppression of speech or writing, either as an end in itself or as a means to some other legislative end.”
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.