Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 613 F.2d 1285 - Stansberry v. Holmes

Stansberry v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis

613 F.2d 1285 · 1980

Citation profile

80
cited by 80 later decisions
3
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale (1998), Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster (1989)

34 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions

4101980199020002010decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)

Relies on Grayned v. City of Rockford · Moore v. City of East Cleveland · Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Marchetti 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Zoning provides one of the firmest and most basic of the rights of local control.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Additional definiteness is provided by the fact that the section specifically lists three types of regulated businesses— massage parlors, nude studios, and love parlors — and applies the definition to “any other similar commercial enterprise.” We find that this definition is sufficiently clear and provides adequate warning of the proscribed conduct.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to own or operate a Sexually Oriented Commercial Enterprise at a location in the parts of the county outside the corporate limits of a city without a valid permit issued therefor by the Sheriff in accordance with the provisions of these regulations.”
    3 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.