Baughman v. Freienmuth’s Empirical Analysis
478 F.2d 1345 · 1973
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2013 · most notably Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), United Beverage Co. of South Bend, Inc. v. Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission (1985)
13 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 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 · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Literature may be distributed and posted by the student of the subject school in designated areas on school property as long as it is not obscene or libelous (as defined below) and as long as the distribution of said literature does not reasonably lead the principal to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities. If a student desires to post or make a distribution of free literature which is not officially recognized as a school publication, the student shall submit such non-school material to the principal for review and prior approval. In exercising this right of prior restraint, principals shall follow the procedures specified in this policy. The principal shall render a decision and notify the student within two (2) pupil days of such submission. If the decision is in the negative, the principal shall state his reasons to the student in writing. During this period of review, any supply of the material may be retained by the student or may be left with the principal for safekeeping. Distribution of such material during the review and appeal period, or following a negative decision, shall be sufficient grounds for confiscation of such material and suspension of the student by the principal. If the student is dissatisfied with the decision of the principal with respect to the distribution of a non-school publication, the student may appeal this decision to the appropriate area assistant superintendent who shall render a decision, statin”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nitzberg v. Parks“(a) Secondary school children are within the protection of the first amendment, although their rights are not coextensive with those of adults. (b) Secondary school authorities may exercise reasonable prior réstraint upon the exercise of students’ first amendment rights. (c) Such prior restraints must contain precise criteria sufficiently spelling out what is forbidden so that a reasonably intelligent student will know what he may write and what he may not write. (d) A prior restraint system, even though precisely defining what may not be written, is nevertheless invalid unless it provides for: (1) A definition of “Distribution” and its application to different kinds of material; (2) Prompt approval or disapproval of what is submitted; (3) Specification of the effect of failure to act promptly; and, (4) An adequate and prompt appeals procedure. [ 478 F.2d at 1351 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Nitzberg v. Parks
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.