Sosa’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
12 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably 177 Cal. App. 4th 471 - Cabral v. Martins (2009), 177 Cal. App. 4th 1049 - Tichinin v. City of Morgan Hill (2009)
12 district · 11 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 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Buckley v. Valeo · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · United States v. O'Brien · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“those who petition any department of the government for redress are generally immune from statutory liability for their petitioning conduct.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“conduct incidental to the prosecution of the suit”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The Noerr-Pennington doctrine derives from the First Amendment 's guarantee of `the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' U.S. Const. amend. I . Under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, those who petition any department of the government for redress are generally immune from statutory liability for their petitioning conduct. Empress LLC v. City County of S.F. , 419 F.3d 1052 , 1056 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Manistee Town Ctr. v. City of Glendale , 227 F.3d 1090 , 1092 (9th Cir. 2000)). "The Noerr-Pennington doctrine arose in the antitrust context and initially reflected the Supreme Court's effort to reconcile the Sherman Act with the First Amendment Petition Clause. In Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. , 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S.Ct. 523 , 5 L.Ed.2d 464 (1961), trucking companies brought suit against railroad companies alleging that efforts by the railroads to influence legislation regulating trucking violated the Sherman Act. Id. at 129 , 81 S.Ct. 523 . The Court held that the Sherman Act does not prohibit . . . persons from associating . . . in an attempt to persuade the legislature or the executive to take particular action with respect to a law that would produce a restraint or a monopoly.' Id. at 136-37 , 81 S.Ct. 523 . In reaching this conclusion, the Court observed that construing the Sherman Act to reach such conduct `would raise important constitutional questions' respecting the right of petition, st”
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.