Hull v. Petrillo’s Empirical Analysis
439 F.2d 1184 · 1971
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently October 1994 · most notably Fernandes v. Limmer (1981), Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. City of Hallandale (1984)
27 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Dombrowski v. Pfister · Zwickler v. Koota · Samuels v. J Mackell Fernandez
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of' these constitutional privileges It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax — a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right guaranteed by the federal constitution .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fernandes v. Limmer“The ability to pay is not a legitimate criterion for the state to employ in determining who is to express his views on its streets and who is not. Therefore any fee imposed as a prerequisite to the exercise of the right to communicate ideas on the public sidewalk is an unconstitutional prior restraint upon the freedom of expression.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fernandes v. Limmer“basically twofold: to maintain a proper working relationship between the state and federal units of government, and to avoid premature constitutional adjudication in the federal courts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Anderson v. Nemetz
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.