Jones v. City of Opelika Bowden’s Empirical Analysis
316 U.S. 584 · 1942
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 9 district · 142 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 384 later decisions (77 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably Chimel v. California (1969), West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
59 federal appellate · 9 district · 142 state decisions — followed in 29 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 Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Thornhill v. Alabama · Skinner v. State of Oklahoma Williamson
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 384 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““One man, with views contrary to the rest of his compatriots, is entitled to the privilege of expressing his ideas by speech or broadside to anyone willing to listen or to read. Too many settled beliefs have in time been rejected to justify this generation in refusing a hearing to its own dissentients. But that hearing may be limited by action of the proper legislative body to times, places and methods for the enlightenment of the community which, in view of existing social and economic conditions, are not at odds with the preservation of peace and good order. This means that the proponents of ideas cannot determine entirely for themselves the time and place and manner for the diffusion of knowledge or for their evangelism, any more than the civil authorities may hamper or suppress the public dissemination of facts and principles by the people. The ordinary requirements of civilized life compel this adjustment of interests.” (Emphasis added).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`The Constitution can hardly be thought to deny to one subjected to the restraints of [a licensing law] the right to attack its constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of... speech ... guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living, without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery. Courts, no more than Constitutions, can [sic] intrude into the consciences of men . . . but courts are competent to adjudge the acts men do under color of a constitutional right, such as that of freedom of speech . . . and to determine whether the claimed right is limited by other recognized powers, equally precious to mankind.”
2 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.