382 So. 2d 687 - State v. Elder’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2019 · most notably Mary Gormley v. Director, Connecticut State Department of Adult Probation (1980), 934 So. 2d 1248 - McLean v. State (2006)
39 state decisions
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 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to resolve all doubts as to the validity of [the] statute in favor of its constitutionality, provided the statute may be given a fair construction that is consistent with the federal and state constitutions as well as with the legislative intent.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]here conduct and not merely speech is involved, we believe that the overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"We need not, however, pass on whether section 365.16 (1)(b) validly proscribes pure speech. Rather, we disagree with the trial court's characterization of the section as a proscription of pure speech. This statutory provision is not directed at the communication of opinions or ideas, but at conduct, that is, the act of making a telephone call or a series of telephone calls, without disclosing identity and whether or not conversation ensues, with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass the recipient of the call. Accord, Baker v. State , 16 Ariz. App. 463 , 494 P.2d 68 (1972). Cf. S.H.B. v. State , 355 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 1978). That this conduct may be effected in part by verbal means does not necessarily invalidate the statute on freedom of speech grounds. At most, the use of words as the method with which to harass the recipient of the call involves conduct mixed with speech, to which the controlling constitutional considerations differ somewhat from those applied to pure speech. Specifically, with regard to overbreadth, the applicable test is stated in Broadrick v. Oklahoma , 413 U.S. 601 , 615 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 , 2918 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973): `[W]here conduct and not merely speech is involved, we believe that the overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.` As construed below, section 365.16 (1)(b) is clearly applicable to a whole range of activity which is easily identifiable and”
1 later decision 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.