Dorfman v. Meiszner’s Empirical Analysis
430 F.2d 558 · 1970
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2003 · most notably Ryan v. County of DuPage (1995), United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (1974)
11 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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 National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Shelton v. Tucker · Estes v. Texas · Cox 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The taking of photographs and operation of tape recorders in the courtroom or its environs, and radio or television broadcasting from the courtroom or its environs during the progress of or in connection with judicial proceedings, including proceedings before a United States Magistrate, whether or not court is actually in session, is prohibited. A judge may, however, permit (1) the use of electronic or photographic means for the presentation of evidence or the perpetuation of a record, and (2) the broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing of investitive, ceremonial, or naturalization proceedings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he law not only allows but compels the courts to insure that judicial proceedings are conducted in an orderly, solemn environment free from the interferences which so often accompany modern news coverage of the events.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Our disagreement with the Government’s argument is not that a court is powerless to protect the participants and proceedings from immediate harassment from the press, but that Rule 34, which seeks to accomplish that concededly legitimate goal, is overbroad and, in effect, prohibits, conduct which does not threaten to disrupt judicial process, as well as that which does.” Dorfman v. Meizher, 430 F.2d 558, 562 (7th Cir. 1970).”
1 later decision 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.