Stein v. Batchelor’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions

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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘Obscene’ material means material (a) the dominant theme of which, taken as a whole, appeals to a prurient interest; (b) which is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) which is utterly without redeeming social value.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grove Press, Inc. v. Evans · Longoria v. State

2. ““Although the narrow holding of Stanley is simply that ‘the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit making mere private possession of obscene material a crime’, we think that the case also stands for • a broader proposition. Since Stanley involved a direct review of a state conviction for possession of obscene matter, the narrow holding was sufficient to reverse the conviction; thus it was not necessary for the Court to base its decision on a broader ground. It is impossible, however, for this Court to ignore the broader implications of the opinion which appears to reject or significantly modify the proposition stated in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 485 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957) that ‘obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press’. * * * “Stanley expressly holds that obscenity is protected in the context of mere private possession and in our opinion further suggests that obscenity is deprived of this protection only in the context of ‘public actions taken or intended to be taken with respect to obscene matter’.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 319 F. Supp. 1231 - United States v. B & H DIST. CORP.

3. ““As to the Plaintiff’s contention concerning contemporary community standard [s], we assume arguendo that national standards are constitutionally required. See Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra, 378 U.S. at 192-195, 84 S.Ct. 1676 . This portion of Article 527 apparently has not been construed by the Texas courts. In our opinion Article 527 may reasonably be construed as merely rejecting ‘local’ (i. e. less than state-wide) community standards, and thus is not constitutionally deficient.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 313 F. Supp. 623 - Newman v. Conover