Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 431 U.S. 595 - Splawn v. California

Splawn v. California’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
24
cited 24 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
November 2009
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 6 district · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2009 · most notably Fw/pbs Inc II v. City of Dallas Mjr Inc (1990), United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000)

37 federal appellate · 6 district · 29 state decisions

5601977198019902000decided

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 Hamling v. United States · Miller v. California · Cupp v. Naughten · Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. · Bouie v. City of Columbia

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

  1. “Signs which identify the 'adult' character of a motion picture theater or of a bookstore convey the message that sexually provocative entertainment is to be found within. . . . Such signs . . . provide a warning to those who find erotic materials offensive that they should shop elsewhere for other kinds of books, magazines, or entertainment. Under any sensible regulatory scheme, truthful description of subject matter that is pleasing to some and offensive to others ought to be encouraged, not punished.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “(O)ur authority to review jury instructions is a good deal broader than is our power to upset state court convictions by reason of instructions given during the course of a trial. See Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141 (, 94 S.Ct. 396, 38 L.Ed.2d 368) (1973); Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145 (97 S.Ct. 1730, 52 L.Ed.2d 203) (1977). We can exercise the latter authority only if the instruction renders the subsequent conviction violative of the U. S. Constitution.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “so changed by judicial interpretation as to deny to [petitioner] fair warning of the crime prohibited”
    2 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.