United States v. Harmon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

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

1. ““We are next-confronted with the principal contention of the defendant, that the act — the thing done by him — is wanting in the criminal intent which, as he contends, qualifies every criminal offense, especially one rising to the «logree of a felony. The argument is that, if the offense in question is completes by the mere overt act of knowingly placing in the post office an obscene print, publication, etc., it would subject to indictment and punishment the judge of this circuit for sending the indictment herein containing the forbidden publication, sent him through the mail by mistake, back to the clerk of the court through the mails, or that such a publication made in a law book, as a report of this case, would subject the publisher to the penalty of the law for mailing it to his subscribers; that, as the overt act of the judge, for instance, can only be exonerated in law by proof of the absence of criminal intent, the rule of exception must be indifferently applied, so that in every case the question of intent, motive, purpose, must be open to inquiry, and, if there was no evil design, — no animus mali, — the jury should bo directed to acquit. The deduction from this particularization has for its postulate a radical misconception of the postal organization, and the scope and policy of the law touching obscene literature. The government is authorized, not commanded, by the constitution to maintain post offices and post roads. The system is organized and'maintained by the g”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Fulkerson

2. “There is a good deal of loose reasoning on the subject of the liberty of the press, as if its inviolability were constitutionally such that, like the king of England, it could do no wrong, and was free from every inquiry, and afforded a perfect sanctuary for every abuse; that, in short, it implied a desperate sovereignty to do every sort of wrong, without the slightest accountability to private or public justice. Such a notion is too extravagant to be held by any sound constitutional lawyer, with regard to the rights and duties belonging to governments generally, or to the state governments in particular. If it were admitted to be correct, it might be justly affirmed that the liberty of the press was incompatible with the permanent existence of any free government.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Burnell

3. “It is a radical misconception of the scope of the constitutional protection to indulge the belief that a person may print and publish ad libitum any matter, whatever the substance or language, without accountability to law. Liberty in all its forms and assertions in this country is regulated by law. It is not an unbridled license. Where vituperation or licentiousness begins, the liberty of the press ends.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Burnell