Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 338 U.S. 912 - Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc.

Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

338 U.S. 912 · 1950

Citation profile

667
cited by 667 later decisions
103
cited 103 times by the Supreme Court
29
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

249 federal appellate · 45 district · 185 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 667 later decisions (103 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Teague v. Lane (1989), Irvin v. Dowd (1961)

249 federal appellate · 45 district · 185 state decisions — followed in 29 states

159019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Bridges v. State of California Times-Mirror Co · Craig v. Harney · Abrams v. United States · Pennekamp v. Florida

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

  1. “Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated.”
    28 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The suggestion was made here also, that the mischief could have been avoided by exercising the right of the Defense to examine, on their voir dire, all prospective jurors and then inquiring as to whether or not they had heard these broadcasts. Well, now, it hardly seems necessary for the Court to say to men who are experienced in the trial of jury cases, that every time Defense Counsel asked a prospective juror whether he had heard a radio broadcast to the effect that his client has confessed to this crime or that he has been guilty of similar crimes, he would by that act be driving just one more nail into James’ coffin.””
    2 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.