United States v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis
500 F.2d 733 · 1974
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1994 · most notably Marks v. United States (1977), United States v. Bright (1980)
55 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1462 · 18 U.S.C. § 1465
Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Hamling v. United States · Roth v. United States · Miller v. California
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Freedom of expression is fundamental to our society and has contributed much to the development and well-being of our free society. In the exercise of the constitutional right to free expression which all of us enjoy, sex may be portrayed and the subject of sex may be discussed, freely and publicly, so long as the expression does not fall within the area of obscenity. However, the constitutional right to free expression does not extend to the expression of that which is obscene. Furthermore, obscenity is excluded from constitutional protection because it is without social value. Of course, the mere fact that material deals with sex does not mean that it cannot have value to society. Indeed, such material can have social importance if it portrays sex in a manner that advocates ideas or that has literary, scientific or artistic value. It is for you to determine whether the materials at issue in this case are of value to society.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We think the above passage of the Court’s charge, read with the instructions as a whole, was sufficient to inform the jury that . they should not convict the defendant if they found the materials to be of any social value.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(U)nless we were to require the daily refilling of the jury wheel, Congress may necessarily conclude that some periodic delay in updating the wheel is reasonable to permit the orderly administration of justice. (Citing as examples United States v. Pentado, 5 Cir. 1972, 463 F.2d 355 , (three year delay); United States v. Gooding, 5 Cir. 1973, 473 F.2d 425 , (three year four month delay), and United States v. Kuhn, 5 Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 179, (five year delay).) Invariably of course, as time goes on, the jury wheel will be more and more out of date, especially near the end of the statutorily prescribed time period for updating the wheel. But if the jury wheel is not discriminatory when completely updated at the time of each refilling, a prohibited 'purposeful discrimination' does not arise near the end of the period simply because the young and other persons have belatedly become eligible for jury service by becoming registered voters. Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545 , 551, 87 S.Ct. 643, 647, 17 L.Ed.2d 599 (1967); see Avery v. Georgia, 345 U.S. 559 , 73 S.Ct. 891, 97 L.Ed. 1244 (1953); Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625 , 92 S.Ct. 1221, 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972).”
1 later decision 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.