Noto v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
173 federal appellate · 21 district · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 433 later decisions (45 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY (1966), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
173 federal appellate · 21 district · 68 state decisions — followed in 18 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Noto (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Dennis v. United States · Yates v. United States · Rodriguez v. New York · De Jonge v. Oregon · V Subversive Activities Control Board
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 433 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the mere abstract teaching [of] the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence,”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he requisite criminal intent * * * must be judged strictissimi juris, for otherwise there is a danger that one in sympathy with the legitimate aims of such an organization, but not specifically intending to accomplish them by resort to violence, might be punished for his adherence to lawful and constitutionally protected purposes, because of other and unprotected purposes which he does not necessarily share.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.” De Jonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365 , 57 S.Ct. 255, 260 , 81 L.Ed. 278, 284 (1937).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Harris v. Younger
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.