Sedelbauer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 12 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Any adult human being who could pick up the packages, above described, and sell them to a customer in a store, as above described, would indeed be out of touch with reality if he did not know and understand the nature of the object he was selling."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sedelbauer v. State · McNeal v. State

2. “"The First Amendment guarantees each citizen the freedom of speech and publication to accomplish these ends. [instructing children and adults by explicit» ly depicting the functions of sexual arousal and intercourse itself, and, within the definitions of art, depicting the naked human in various postures caleu-lated to be pleasing to the viewer and to possess cultural value. Id. at 208 .] This freedom, however, does not give license for the utterance or publication of any and every conceiveable variation of the subject matter, if that utterance or publication impinges upon the freedom of others to enjoy life in an acceptable manner according to the standards of the community. "It is not the subject matter that is obscene in any situation, it is the manner in which the subject matter is presented that constitutes obscenity. For instance, a nude model may be presented to an art class to aid in the instruction of the students as to how to depict the nude human form. The model may be presented in a wholly acceptable manner and not be considered as lewd or obscene. However, one could take that same model and by a slight change in pose and setting transform that same person into a lewd and obscene object. The difference would be readily discernible to any member of society." (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Erhardt v. State

3. ““[tjhis question raises a specious argument which appellant attempts to support by citing the case of Miller v. California, (1973) 413 U.S. 15 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 . [[Image here]] He cites this language for the proposition that the material should be tolerated by the community rather than accepted by the community. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines the word ‘accept’, inter alia, ‘To take without protest: endure or tolerate.’ It defines the word ‘tolerate’, inter alia, ‘To endure, to put up with.’ Appellant has attempted to construct an argument here based upon what we perceive to be unrelated language lifted from context from opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States and has attempted to convince this Court that the trial court should be reversed because of the choice between words, which according to the dictionary are virtually interchangeable. We hold the trial court did not err in using the word ‘accept’ in giving instructions to the jury rather than the word ‘tolerate’ as requested by the defendant.” (Emphasis added.) 428 N.E.2d at 211 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Richards v. State