State v. Sondergaard’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 1990
11 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
Relies on Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Bouie v. City of Columbia · Cohen v. California · Gooding v. Wilson · Lewis v. City of New Orleans
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This essential element of a true substantive “threat” [viz., the attendant circumstances that deprive the communication of first amendment protection] . poses no special problem and invites no extended consideration when, as in those situations previously addressed by this Court, a communica tion “pregnant with the promise of evil” [such as the death threat in Hotham] is “made, published or sent” to the same person who ... is menaced. Inherent in such circumstances, ipso facto, is probability that alarm or anxiety will be induced in that person to whom the communication has been directed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Daley“" State v. Hotham stresses that, as thus substantively conceived, a `threat' must involve more than a message of `menace of destruction or of injury'; it is also an indispensable feature of a `threat' that its `promise of evil' must be in a context of circumstances by which it gives rise to reasonable likelihood that `alarm' or `fear ... to his disquiet' will be induced in some person."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Otte v. State“within the statute. * * * In the present context * * * without (at minimum) additional allegations of the existence of a special relationship between [the hearer] and [the victim] by virtue of which, in accordance with the ordinary course of human experience, it could justifiably be thought reasonably likely that [the hearer] would be alarmed or caused anxiety of a”
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.