Thornhill v. Alabama’s Empirical Analysis
310 U.S. 88 · 1940
Citation profile
939 federal appellate · 297 district · 1,672 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4,302 later decisions (431 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably Younger v. Harris (1971), Connick v. Myers (1983)
939 federal appellate · 297 district · 1,672 state decisions — followed in 49 states
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 Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · Palko v. State of Connecticut · Nebbia v. People of State of New York · United States v. Carolene Products Co.
Cited together with Schneider v. State · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · Lovell v. City of Griffin
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 4,302 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is not merely the sporadic abuse of power by the censor but the pervasive threat inherent in its very existence that constitutes the danger to freedom of discussion.”
62 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period.”
59 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The power and the duty of the State to take adequate steps to preserve the peace and to protect the privacy, the lives, and the property of its residents cannot be doubted. But no clear and present danger of destruction of life or property, or invasion of the right of privacy, or breach of peace can be thought to be inherent in the activities of every person who approaches the premises of an employer and publicizes the facts of a labor dispute involving the latter. We are not now concerned with picketing en masse or otherwise conducted which might occasion such imminent and aggravated danger to these interests as to justify a statute narrowly drawn to cover the precise situation giving rise to the danger.””
13 later decisions 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.