Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 424 SW3D 10 - Lo, Ex Parte John Christopher

Lo, Ex Parte John Christopher’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

76 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston))

Relationships

Relies on Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Roth v. United States · Miller v. California · New York v. Ferber · Rav v. City of St Paul Minnesota

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

  1. “(b) A person commits an offense if the person, with the intent to harm or defraud another, obtains, possesses, transfers, or uses an item of: (1) identifying information of another person without the other person’s consent; (2) information concerning a deceased natural person, including a stillborn infant or fetus, that would be identifying information of that person were that person alive, if the item of information is obtained, possessed, transferred, or used without legal authorization; or (3) identifying information of a child younger than 18 years of age.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A person who is 17 years of age or older commits an offense if, with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, the person, over the internet, by electronic mail or text message or other electronic message service or system, or through a commercial online service, intentionally: (1) communicates in a sexually explicit manner with a minor; or (2) distributes sexually explicit material to a minor.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “According to the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, a statute is facially invalid if it prohibits a 'substantial' amount of protected speech 'judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.'”
    3 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.