Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 530 SO2D 601 - State v. LeBlang

State v. LeBlang’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
April 2002
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Hamling v. United States · Roth v. United States · Miller v. California · Rose v. Clark · Bates v. State Bar

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““You must determine whether the material appeals to a prurient interest in sex, for unless it does it cannot be obscene. A prurient interest in sex is not the same as a candid, wholesome, or healthy interest in sex. Material does not appeal to the prurient interest just because it deals with sex, or shows nude bodies. Prurient interest is a shameful or morbid interest in sex, nudity or excretion which goes beyond the customary limits of candor.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.