564 So. 2d 345 - State v. Honore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 state decisions

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

1. “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Stanley · State v. Gentras

2. “[I]t is now well established that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 485 , 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1309 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), reaffirmed today in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, at 23 , 93 S.Ct. 2607, at 2614 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 . As we have noted in United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, at 141-143 , 93 S.Ct. 2674, at 2677-2678 , 37 L.Ed.2d 513 {(1973)], also decided today, Stanley depended, not on any First Amendment right to purchase or possess obscene materials, but on the right to privacy in the home. Three concurring Justices indicated that the case could have been disposed of on Fourth Amendment grounds without reference to the nature of the materials. Stanley v. Georgia, supra, 394 U.S. [557], at 569, 89 S.Ct. [1243], at 1250[, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969)] (Stewart, J., joined by Brennan and White, JJ., concurring). In particular, claimant contends that, under Stanley , the right to possess obscene material in the privacy of the home creates a right to acquire it or import it from another country. This overlooks the explicitly narrow and precisely delineated privacy right on which Stanley rests. That holding reflects no more than what Mr. Justice Harlan characterized as the law's `solicitude to protect the privacies of the life within [the home].' Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 551 , 81 S.Ct. 1752, 1781 , 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (1961) (dissenting opinion). * * * We are not disposed to extend the precise, carefully limited holding of”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 772 So. 2d 64 - State v. Brenan

3. “although one may have the right to possess and view obscene material in the privacy of his own home, this right does not equate to a right to acquire the obscene material.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 772 So. 2d 64 - State v. Brenan