Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 435 U.S. 982 - Sewell v. Georgia

Sewell v. Georgia’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

286
cited by 286 later decisions
19
cited 19 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
August 2008
most recently cited

109 federal appellate · 36 district · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 286 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2008 · most notably Finley v. United States (1989), Pope v. Illinois (1987)

109 federal appellate · 36 district · 44 state decisions

16301978198019902000decided

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 Grayned v. City of Rockford · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Miller v. California · Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville · Grayned v. City of Rockford

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

  1. “It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly distribute, possess with intent to distribute, or offer or agree to distribute any obscene material or any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs for any thing of pecuniary value.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “First, he argues that an obscenity statute which defines scienter in a manner which authorizes obscenity convictions on mere “constructive” knowledge im-permissibly chills the dissemination of materials protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.... Second, he argues that there is no rational basis for § 26-2101(c) and, in addition, that it is unconstitutionally vague.... Third, appellant contends that “Hot and Sultry” is not obscene as a matter of law.... And, finally, appellant challenges the warrantless mass seizure of the sexual devices on First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment grounds....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.