Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 534 F.2d 1020 - United States v. Kelner

United States v. Kelner’s Empirical Analysis

534 F.2d 1020 · 1976

Citation profile

148
cited by 148 later decisions
19
states following
September 2023
most recently cited

69 federal appellate · 6 district · 51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 148 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably 18 Cal. 4th 297 - People v. Bolin (1998), United States v. Concepcion (1992)

69 federal appellate · 6 district · 51 state decisions — followed in 19 states

550197619801990200020102020decided

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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000) · 18 U.S.C. § 875 · 30 U.S.C. § 875

Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Pereira v. United States · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Bell 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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.”
    19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “according to [its] language and context conveyed a gravity of purpose and likelihood of execution so as to constitute speech beyond the pale of protected 'vehement, caustic. . .unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “only unequivocal, unconditional and specific expressions of intention immediately to inflict injury may be punished”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.