Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 336 U.S. 77 - Kovacs v. Cooper

Kovacs v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis

336 U.S. 77 · 1949

Citation profile

2,114
cited by 2,114 later decisions
214
cited 214 times by the Supreme Court
40
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

677 federal appellate · 104 district · 675 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 2,114 later decisions (214 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Katz v. United States (1967), Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

677 federal appellate · 104 district · 675 state decisions — followed in 40 states

5050194919501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257

Relies on Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Meyer v. State of Nebraska · Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Same · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland

Cited together with Schneider v. State · Ward v. Rock Against Racism · Cox v. State of New Hampshire · United States v. O'Brien · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization

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 2,114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “more people may be more easily and cheaply reached”
    24 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “come[s] to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements.”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “4. That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation, either as principal, agent or employee, to play, use or operate for advertising purposes, or for any other purpose whatsoever, on or upon the public streets, alleys or thoroughfares in the City of Trenton, any device known as a sound truck, loud speaker or sound amplifier, or radio or phonograph with a loud speaker or sound amplifier, or any other instrument known as a calliope or any instrument of any kind or character which emits therefrom loud and raucous noises and is attached to and upon any vehicle operated or standing upon said streets or public places aforementioned.”
    12 later decisions 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.