Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 573 U.S. 464 - McCullen v. Coakley

McCullen v. Coakley’s Empirical Analysis

573 U.S. 464 · 2014

Citation profile

126
cited by 126 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 126 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021), Counterman v. Colorado (2023)

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 16 states

88020142020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 248 (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994)

Relies on Buckley v. Valeo · United States v. O'Brien · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Ward v. Rock Against Racism · Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n

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

  1. “cannot be 'justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech,'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A] regulation that serves purposes unrelated to the content of expression is deemed neutral, even if it has an incidental effect on some speakers or messages but not others.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The point is not that [Sandy City] must enact all or even any of the proposed [alternative approaches]. The point is instead that [the City] has available to it a variety of approaches that appear capable of serving its interests, without excluding individuals from areas historically open for speech and debate.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.