United States v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions

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

1. “Quite clearly, in our view, the procedure required by Books was intended to protect the constitutional right to free and full dissemination of non-obscene expression. Of course, where there is no intent to disseminate the speech, or where the dissemination is limited in scope, a smaller segment of the public will be deprived of any non-obscene material during the period of time between the seizure and the subsequent suppression hearing. However, to afford First Amendment procedural protections only to speech directed to a large segment of the public, or speech which has “currency in the daily lives of the American people,” is to ignore the purpose of, and experience under, that Amendment. History teaches us that the First Amendment has generally been judicially invoked to protect the speech of small and unpopular minorities. Ideas which have “currency” are rarely ideas which are the objects of official suppression. Nor are we persuaded that the manner in which the material is disseminated forms a rational basis for limiting the procedural safeguards embodied in the Books rule.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Greenmount Sales, Inc. v. Davila

2. ““The Pryba decision seems to suggest that the material there seized was in the private domain as opposed to the public domain. As we have just indicated the material here seized was not, we believe, intended purely for private use by the persons from whom it was seized. However, to the extent that Pryba draws a distinction between private and public in applying [Quantity of Books'], it is on questionable ground. It has been held that admittedly obscene material possessed solely for private use is not subject to state regulation. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 , 89 S.Ct. 1243 , 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969).’’ 428 F.2d at 1175 n. 11.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. 50 Magazines

3. ““The Court reasoned that absent an adversary hearing a substantial threat existed that the right of non-obscene publications to unrestricted circulation would be impinged through massive seizures of material deemed obscene solely on the basis of an ex parte hearing.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chesapeake B & M, Inc. v. Cassilly