State v. Manzo’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably State v. Quino (1992), State v. Kam (1988)
3 federal appellate · 55 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. § 1461
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Hamling v. United States · Roth 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) A person commits the offense of promoting pornography if, knowing its content and character, he: (a) Disseminates for monetary consideration any pornographic material ...[>]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any material or performance is “pornographic” if all of the following coalesce: (a) Considered as a whole, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest in sexual matters. In determining predominant appeal, the material or performance shall be judged with reference to ordinary adults, unless it appears from the character of the material or performance and the circumstances of its dissemination that it is designed for a particular, clearly defined audience. In that cáse, it shall be judged with reference to the specific audience for which it was designed. (b) It goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in describing or representing sexual matters. In determining whether material or a performance goes substantially beyond the customary limits of candor in describing or representing sexual matters, it shall be judged with reference to the contemporary standards of candor of ordinary adults relating to the description or representation of such matters. (c) It is utterly without redeeming social value.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is “the traditional rule that a person may not challenge a statute upon the ground that it might be applied unconstitutionally in circumstances other than those before the court.” ... In the present context, application of this rule would require Appellant to show that no conceivable combination of facts could both fit the charge and be a constitutional basis of guilt. But where the First Amendment is involved an exception to this rule has been created (the overbreadth doctrine) pursuant to which it is sufficient, in order to establish facial invalidity, merely to show that the challenged statute is broad enough in its terms to suppress protected speech, without the need of showing that the specific conduct before the court is protected.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bumanglag
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.