State v. Baccala’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 23 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “affirm[s] the fundamental principle that there are no per se fighting words; rather, courts must determine on a case-by-case basis all of the circumstances relevant to whether a reasonable person in the position of the actual addressee would have been likely to respond with violence. This principle is consistent with the contextual approach taken when considering other categories of speech deemed to fall outside the scope of first amendment protection, such as true threats and incitement.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 354 - State v. Taveras · State v. Parnoff

2. “[A] proper contextual analysis requires consideration of the actual circumstances, as perceived by both a reasonable speaker and addressee, to determine whether there was a likelihood of violent retaliation. This necessarily includes the manner in which the words were uttered, by whom and to whom the words were uttered, and any other attendant circumstances that were objectively apparent and bear on the question of whether a violent response was likely.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 354 - State v. Taveras · State v. Parnoff

3. “[f]undamentally, we are called upon to determine whether [his] speech is protected under the first amendment ... or, rather, constitutes criminal conduct that a civilized and orderly society may punish through incarceration.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 354 - State v. Taveras · State v. Parnoff