Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 305 FSUPP 1098 - Carter v. Gautier

Carter v. Gautier’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
July 1994
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 1994

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

1101969197019801990decided

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 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Roth v. United States · Dombrowski v. Pfister · Thornhill v. Alabama · Zwickler v. Koota · Speiser v. Randall

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

  1. ““This, of course, does not mean that courts, either Federal or State, desire to protect obscenity. It does mean that the Supreme Court has decided that lest the non-obscene and the constitutionally protected be suppressed it is better that some judicial officer * * determine that the challenged matter is obscene before its seizure. Nor is it any reflection upon law enforcement officers who deserve our thanks and support in greater measure than sometimes received to suggest that a judicial officer trained in the process of weighing evidence and making deeisions is better equipped than they to pass upon the important and sometimes difficult question of obscenity.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “constitutionally deficient because its owners and possessors were not first allowed an adversary hearing on the question of its obscenity.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.