United States v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis
561 F.2d 53 · 1977
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1994
2 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1464 · 19 U.S.C. § 1305 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 47 U.S.C. § 301 · 47 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on Hamling v. United States · Roth v. United States · Miller v. California · Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'obscene' and 'indecent' in § 1464 are to be read as parts of a single proscription, applicable only if the challenged language appeals to the prurient interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“whether, to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Hott v. State
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.