Lind v. Grimmer’s Empirical Analysis
30 F.3d 1115 · 1994
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Stockman v. Federal Election Commission (1998), Bartnicki v. Vopper (1999)
17 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 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 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Ward v. Rock Against Racism
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because the[ ] concerns [addressed by the statute] all stem from the direct communicative impact of speech, we conclude that section 11-216(d) regulates speech on the basis of its content.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tschida v. Motl · Tschida v. Mangan“(a) to prevent the Commission’s credibility from being invoked to support “scandalous charges,” (b) to protect “fledgling political groups and candidates [from] the publicity that would befall them from open proceedings,” (c) to prevent candidates and their supporters from being “unduly tarred by a vindictive complaint,” (d) to promote settlement of disputes over violations of spending laws, and (e) to eliminate distractions and collateral concerns that would exist if commission proceedings were made public.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stilp v. Contino · Tschida v. Motl“A statute regulating speech is content-neutral only if the state can justify it without reference either to the content of the speech it restricts or to the direct effect of that speech on listeners.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tschida v. Motl · Tschida v. Mangan
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.