Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 360 U.S. 684 - Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents of the University

Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents of the University’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

454
cited by 454 later decisions
90
cited 90 times by the Supreme Court
25
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

89 federal appellate · 18 district · 137 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 454 later decisions (90 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Miller v. California (1973), Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)

89 federal appellate · 18 district · 137 state decisions — followed in 25 states

178019591960197019801990200020102020decided

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 47 U.S.C. § 151

Relies on Roth v. United States · Thornhill v. Alabama · Near v. State of Minnesota Olson · Dennis v. United States · Thomas v. Collins

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

  1. “[t]his argument misconceives what it is that the Constitution protects. Its guarantee is not confined to the expression of ideas that are conventional or shared by a majority.... And in the realm of ideas it protects expression which is eloquent no less than that which is unconvincing.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Advocacy of conduct proscribed by law is not, as Mr. Justice Brandéis long ago pointed out, ‘a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on.’ Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 , at page 376 [ 47 S.Ct. 641 , at page 648, 71 L.Ed. 1095, 1106 ] (concurring opinion). ‘Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of the rights of free speech * * *.’ Id., 274 U.S. at 378 [47 S.Ct. at paae 649].” Kingsley Corp. v. Regents of U. of N. Y. 360 U.S. 684, 689 , 79 S.Ct. 1362, 1365-66 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1512 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of the rights of free speech”
    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.