Bond v. Floyd’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
230 federal appellate · 72 district · 133 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 682 later decisions (53 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2024 · most notably Powell v. McCormack (1969), Rankin v. McPherson (1987)
230 federal appellate · 72 district · 133 state decisions — followed in 28 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.
Relationships
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Yates v. United States · Terminiello v. Chicago · Gomillion v. Lightfoot · Wood v. Georgia
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 682 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The manifest function of the First Amendment in a representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We ... hold that the disqualification of Bond from membership in the Georgia House because of his statements violated Bond's right of free expression under the First Amendment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Parker v. Merlino · Velez v. Levy“Connecticut has wide freedom to gauge on a case-by-case basis the fitness of an applicant to practice law. Connecticut can, and does, require appropriate training and familiarity with Connecticut law. Apart from such tests of competence, it requires a new lawyer to take both an 'attorney's oath' to perform his functions faithfully and honestly and a 'commissioner's oath' to 'support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Connecticut.' Appellant has indicated her willingness and ability to subscribe to the substance of both oaths, and Connecticut may quite properly conduct a character investigation to insure in any given case 'that an applicant is not one who "swears to an oath pro forma while declaring or manifesting his disagreement with or indifference to the oath.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ambach v. Norwick
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.