Sawyer v. Sandstrom’s Empirical Analysis
615 F.2d 311 · 1980
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 9 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably United States v. Alvarez (1980), 46 Cal. 3d 381 - People v. Superior Court (1988)
14 federal appellate · 9 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2385 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“right to freely associate is not limited to those associations which are 'political in the customary sense' but includes those which 'pertain to the social, legal, and economic benefit of the (individuals who are associating).' Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 , 483, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1681, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An enactment which criminalizes ordinary associational conduct not constituting a breach of the peace runs afoul of the first amendment.... The loitering ordinance before us punishes an individual not for his own criminal acts, but rather for his act of being in a public place and associating with individuals whom he knows to be engaged in criminal activity, i.e., drug use or possession. Both this court and the Supreme Court have recognized that under our system of justice punishment must be predicated only upon personal guilt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Appellant .. . asks us to decide whether his mere knowing presence at the scene of a suspected crime can be classified as criminal conduct. In essence, appellant questions whether he can be punished for having the wrong kinds of friends and for being with them on a public street. Appellant attacks the constitutionality of the loitering ordinance under which he was convicted, arguing that the ordinance is overbroad and violates his first and fourteenth amendment rights. We agree with appellant’s contentions.””
1 later decision 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.