United States v. Lampley’s Empirical Analysis
573 F.2d 783 · 1978
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2021 · most notably United States v. Sebetich (1985), United States v. Clemons (1988)
40 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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
Relies on Anders v. California · Benton v. Maryland · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Screws 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]n enacting § 223 the Congress had a compelling interest in the protection of innocent individuals from fear, abuse or annoyance at the hands of persons who employed the telephone, not to communicate, but for other unjustifiable motives.” Id. at 787 (citations omitted).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whoever— (1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communication by means of telephone— (A) makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent; (B) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number; (C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or (D) makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number;”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Court, indeed, has recognized that the requirement of a specific intent to do a prohibited act may avoid those consequences to the accused which may otherwise render a vague or indefinite statute invalid_ [Wjhere the punishment imposed is only for an act knowingly done with the purpose of doing that which the statute prohibits, the accused cannot be said to suffer from lack of warning or knowledge that the act which he does is a violation of law.””
2 later decisions 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.