Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 649 F.2d 783 - Piepenburg v. Cutler

Piepenburg v. Cutler’s Empirical Analysis

649 F.2d 783 · 1981

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
3
states following
January 2007
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently January 2007

7 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

150198119902000decided

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

Relies on Swain v. State of Alabama · Hamling v. United States · Miller v. California · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan

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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Upon the filing of an affidavit for a search warrant, the magistrate shall determine, by examination of the material sought to be seized if attached, by examination of the affidavit describing the materials, or by such other manner or means that he deems necessary, whether probable cause exists to believe that the material is pornographic and whether probable cause exists for the immediate issuance of a search warrant. 'Upon making this determination, he shall issue a search warrant ordering the seizure of the material described in the affidavit for a search warrant according to the provisions of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In the trial of a pornography case, neither the prosecution nor the defense shall be required to produce expert testimony as to whether the material or performance is or is not harmful to adults, or is not pornographic, or as to any element of the definition of pornographic, including contemporary community standards (emphasis added).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “was restricted to institutions or persons having scientific, educational, governmental, or other similar justification for possessing pornographic material.”
    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.