Reeves v. McConn’s Empirical Analysis
631 F.2d 377 · 1980
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Naacp Western Region v. City of Richmond Ae (1984), Eanes v. State (1990)
24 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 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. § 1718
Relies on Younger v. Harris · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Connally v. General Construction Co.
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“, presents a closer question. The Supreme Court has expressed reservations about the word”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"We are certain that most citizens desire protection from unreasonable or disruptive levels of noise on the streets and from uninvited noise within the privacy of their homes. We say nothing today that prevents the city from granting that protection. When the city fears disruption, it may prohibit conduct that actually causes, or imminently threatens to cause, material and substantial disruption of the community or invasion of the rights of others.... Or the city may reasonably prohibit kinds or degrees of sound amplification that are clearly incompatible with the normal activity of certain locations at certain times.... But the city may not broadly prohibit reasonably amplified speech merely because of an undifferentiated fear that disruption might sometimes result. When First Amendment freedoms are involved, the city may protect its legitimate interests only with precision." (Citations omitted.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'Overbreadth’ has also been used to describe a challenge to a statute that in all its applications directly restricts protected First Amendment activity and does not employ means narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.”). 7 . The plaintiffs in addition allege that the resolution is impermissibly vague. The standard of unconstitutional vagueness is whether the terms . of the law are so indefinite that”
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.