Time, Inc. v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
428 federal appellate · 134 district · 666 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,763 later decisions (108 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably United States v. Booker (2004), Katz v. United States (1967)
428 federal appellate · 134 district · 666 state decisions — followed in 44 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 Gideon v. Wainwright · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Mapp v. Ohio · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Boyd v. United States
Cited together with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts · St. Amant v. Thompson · Garrison v. State of Louisiana
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 1,763 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period.”
53 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We find applicable here the standard of knowing or reckless falsehood, not through blind application of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, relating solely to libel actions by public officials, but only upon consideration of the factors which arise in the particular context of the application of the New York [invasion of privacy] statute in cases involving private individuals.... [A] different test might be required in [an invasion of privacy action] by a public official, as opposed to a libel action by a public official or a statutory action by a private individual....”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the constitutional protections for speech and press preclude the application of the New York statute to redress false reports of matters of public interest in the absence of proof that the defendant published the report with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth.”
10 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.