Sherman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 2017
7 federal appellate · 4 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 29 U.S.C. § 157 (§ 7 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon · Thornhill v. Alabama · Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley · Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America v. P Lockridge · Cox v. State of Louisiana
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The State interest [in balancing public and private interests] ... is not simply in the punishment of violence, or in the enjoining of future violence, once it has occurred. The State has at least as great an interest, if not a duty, in the prevention of violence. In the context of a labor dispute, this statute is intended to prevent violence by regulating the number and location of pickets and by prohibiting the obstruction of traffic to and from the struck premises.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Olvera v. State · Olvera v. State“As we construe this statute, in a criminal prosecution for its violation, the State must prove that a person (1) Singly, or in concert with others (2) intentionally, knowingly or recklessly (3) engaged in picketing in which (4) pickets constituted or formed any character (type) of obstacle (5) which by their person or by the placing of vehicles or any other physical obstructions (6) rendered impassable or unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous the free ingress to or egress from any entrance to any premises being picketed or to any other premises.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We believe that this definition comports with the purposes of the Legislature as set forth in the preamble. By requiring that passage be severely restricted or completely blocked before a prosecution under this statute would lie we give ample breathing room for the exercise of First Amendment rights. At the same time, such a definition adequately protects the right of the public to have access to the struck premises.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.