Osborne v. Ohio’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
456 federal appellate · 77 district · 558 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,477 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Rav v. City of St Paul Minnesota (1992), Maryland v. Craig (1990)
456 federal appellate · 77 district · 558 state decisions — followed in 41 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
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Buckley v. Valeo · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Hamling v. United States
Cited together with New York v. Ferber · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Miller v. California · Ashcroft Attorney General v. Free Speech Coalition · Stanley v. Georgia
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 1,477 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it would strain credulity to believe that Colbert was attempting to lure the child there to watch, say, “Mary Poppins” or “The Sound of Music,” or to engage in basket weaving or a game of pickup sticks. The circumstances suggest that Colbert intended to victimize the child in some manner, and as the Supreme Court recognized nearly twenty years ago, “evidence suggests that pedophiles use child pornography to seduce other children into sexual activity.””
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Wjhere a statute regulates expressive conduct, the scope of the statute does not render it unconstitutional unless its over-breadth is not only “real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Even where a statute at its margins infringes on protected expression, “facial invalidation is inappropriate if the ‘remainder of the statute ... covers a whole range of easily identifiable and constitutionally proseribable ... conduct....’””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Virginia v. Black · Amatel v. Reno
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.