Chase v. Davelaar’s Empirical Analysis
645 F.2d 735 · 1981
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably IDK, Inc. v. County of Clark (1988), Kev, Inc. v. Kitsap County (1986)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Grayned v. City of Rockford · United States v. O'Brien · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“3-11. Nudity on Premises where Alcoholic Beverages are offered for sale. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person maintaining, owning, or operating a commercial establishment located within the City of Cocoa Beach, Florida, at which alcoholic beverages are offered for sale for consumption on the premises: (1) To suffer or permit any female person, while on the premises of said commercial establishment, to expose to the public view that area of the human breast at or below the areola thereof. (2) To suffer or permit any female person, while on the premises of said commercial establishment to employ any device or covering which is intended to give the appearance of or simulate such portions of the human female breast as described in subsection (a)(1). (3) To suffer or permit any person, while on the premises of said commercial establishment to expose to public view his or her genitals, pubic area, buttocks, anus or anal cleft or cleavage. (4) To suffer or permit any person, while on the premises of said commercial establishment, to employ any device or covering which is intended to give the appearance of or simulate the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, anus, anal cleft or cleavage. (b) It shall be unlawful for any female person, while on the premises of a commercial establishment located within the City of Cocoa Beach, Florida, at which alcoholic beverages are offered for sale for consumption on the premises, to expose to public view that area of the human female breast at or bel”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“is overbroad. It bans the display of breasts in any place that serves food or beverages, alcoholic or not, that is not a `theater, concert hall or other similar establishment ... primarily devoted to theatrical peformances'.... Moreover, the [ordinance] would prevent the affected establishments from offering entertainment that is not obscene under current law, since nudity alone is not sufficient to make material legally obscene. [Citation omitted.] Such non-obscene entertainment is protected by the First Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“must be carefully drawn or be authoritatively construed to punish only unprotected speech and not be susceptible of application to protected expression.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wurtz v. Risley
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.