Cox v. State of Louisiana’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

768 federal appellate · 207 district · 880 state decisions

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 2,813 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We emphatically reject the notion urged by appellant that the First and Fourteenth Amendments afford the same kind of freedom to those who would communicate ideas by conduct such as patrolling, marching, and picketing on streets and highways, as these amendments afford to those who communicate ideas by pure speech.”

   140 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Cox v. State of Louisiana · Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. Public Service Commission

2. “"A. Whoever with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby: (1) crowds or congregates with others. . . in or upon . . . a public street or public highway, or upon a public sidewalk, or any other public place or building . . . and who fails or refuses to disperse and move on. . . when ordered so to do by any law enforcement officer of any municipality, or parish, in which such act or acts are committed, or by any law enforcement officer of the state of Louisiana, or any other authorized person . . . shall be guilty of disturbing the peace."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Anderson v. Vaughn · State v. Harrison

3. “Appellant led a group of young college students who wished “to protest segregation” and discrimination against Negroes and the arrest of 23 fellow students. They assembled peaceably at the State Capitol building and marched to the courthouse where they sang, prayed and listened to a speech. A reading of the record reveals agreement on the part of the State’s witnesses that Cox had the demonstration “very well controlled,” and until the end of Cox’s speech, the group was perfectly “orderly.” Sheriff Clemens testified that the crowd’s activities were not “objectionable” before that time. They became objectionable, according to the Sheriff himself, when Cox, concluding his speech, urged the students to go downtown and sit in at lunch, counters. The Sheriff testified that the sole aspect of the program to which he objected was “the inflammatory manner in which he (Cox) addressed the crowd and told them to go on uptown, go to four places on the protest list, sit down and if they don’t feed you, sit there for one hour.” Yet this part of Cox’s speech obviously did not deprive the demonstration of its protected character under the Constitution as free speech and assembly. See Edwards v. South Carolina, supra; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296 , 84 L. Ed. 1213 , 60 S. Ct. 900 , 128 A.L.R. 1352 ; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 , 84 L. Ed. 1093 , 60 S. Ct. 736 ; Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U. S. 157, 185 , 7 L. Ed. 2d 207, 226 , 82 S. Ct. 248 (concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Har”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bolton v. City of Greenville