State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently January 2009 · most notably 40 Ill. 2d 392 - The PEOPLE v. Raby (1968), Eanes v. State (1990)
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 55 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 Connally v. General Construction Co. · Cox v. State of Louisiana · Edwards v. South Carolina · Cox v. State of Louisiana · Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whether the forum be the courtroom or the chamber of the legislature itself or of a political subdivision of the State, there must be order. It is frivolous to suggest the First Amendment stands in the way of that imperative.” (218 A.2d at p. 150.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any person who by noisy or disorderly conduct disturbs or interferes with the quiet or good order of any place of assembly * * *.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The] defendant says the statute is void for vagueness because it does not spell out the degree of noise or the details of a disorder which will offend. Of course, the statute does not do so in specific terms, and it may be doubted that the ingenuity of man could meet that demand if the Constitution made it. But the Constitution does not insist upon the impossible. It asks only what the subject will reasonably permit, and hence if there is a public interest in need of protection, due process does not stand in the way merely because the subject defies minute prescription. 218 A.2d at 151 . 6”
3 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.