People v. Kim Young’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1972
1 federal appellate · 2 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 Lovell v. City of Griffin · Schenck v. United States · Gitlow v. People of the State of New York · Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. Lynch · Davis v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It may at times be a close question of fact, whether a person is actually ‘distributing’ cards, which the Municipal Code prohibits, or whether he is passing out a card or two as an isolated casual or occasional act, which, under a proper interpretation of its provisions, the code does not prohibit.” People v. Young, 33 C.A.Supp.2d 747, 85 P.2d 231, 232 (1938).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Reisler
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.