4 Cal. 4th 474 - Clark v. Burleigh’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Le Francois v. Goel (2005), 85 Cal. App. 4th 468 - Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club (2000)
4 federal appellate · 73 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 Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Ward v. Rock Against Racism · Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n · Steffel v. Thompson · Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[any] content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“To apply the public forum doctrine a court proceeds in a series of steps. In step one the court defines the `forum' by deciding whether the forum is the entire property to which access is sought or only a portion of that property. In step two the court decides whether the forum thus defined is a traditional `public forum,' a `designated public forum,' or a `nonpublic forum.' If it is either of the first two kinds of forums, in step three the court decides whether the challenged law restricts the content of speech in that forum or only its time, place, or manner. And in step four the court tests the challenged law by the standard that governs both the class of forum it has selected in step two, and if relevant, the type of speech restriction it has identified in step three.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Public property which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication is governed by different standards. We have recognized that the `First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government.' [Citation.] In addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the State may reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view. [Citation.] As we have stated on several occasions,'”
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.