Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
714 federal appellate · 235 district · 573 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,457 later decisions (81 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n (1983), New York v. Ferber (1982)
714 federal appellate · 235 district · 573 state decisions — followed in 43 states
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 23 U.S.C. § 131
Relies on Younger v. Harris · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Edelman v. Jordan · Buckley v. Valeo · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
Cited together with Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York · Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent · Ward v. Rock Against Racism · Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. · City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc.
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 2,457 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The First Amendment protects commercial speech only if that speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading. A restriction on otherwise protected commercial speech is valid only if it (2) seeks to implement a substantial governmental interest, (3) directly advances that interest, and (4) reaches no further than necessary to accomplish the given objective.”
202 later decisions quote this exact passage“insofar as it regulated commercial speech,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[found] and [declared] that the erection and maintenance of outdoor advertising signs, displays, and devices in areas adjacent to the Interstate System and the primary system should be controlled in order to protect the public investment in such highways, to promote the safety and recreational value of public travel, and to preserve natural beauty. [12]”
3 later decisions 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.