Savage v. Gee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “Because overbreadth creates an exception only to the prudential standing inquiry, the Supreme Court has made clear that the injury in fact requirement still applies to over-breadth claims under the First Amendment.”). . At oral argument, the State claimed that”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Speech First, Inc. v. Schlissel · State v. Johnson, Terence

2. “While the doctrines of overbreadth and vagueness provide an exception to the traditional rules of standing and allow parties not yet affected by a statute to bring actions under the First Amendment based on a belief that a policy is so broad or unclear that it will have a chilling effect, Coates v. City of Cincinnati , 402 U.S. 611 , 619-20, 91 S.Ct. 1686 , 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971) ; Dambrot v. Cent. Mich. Univ. , 55 F.3d 1177 , 1182 (6th Cir. 1995), "allegations of a subjective 'chill' are not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm." Laird v. Tatum , 408 U.S. 1 , 13-14, 92 S.Ct. 2318 , 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972). "In order to have standing ... a litigant alleging chill must still establish that a concrete harm-i.e., enforcement of a challenged statute-occurred or is imminent." Morrison v. Bd. of Educ. of Boyd Cty. , 521 F.3d 602 , 610 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); accord Prime Media, Inc. [v. City of Brentwood , 485 F.3d 343 , 350 (6th Cir. 2007) ] ("Because overbreadth creates an exception only to the prudential standing inquiry, the Supreme Court has made clear that the injury in fact requirement still applies to overbreadth claims under the First Amendment.").”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Speech First, Inc. v. Schlissel

3. “[T]he Supreme Court has repeatedly held that individuals or groups need not wait to be prosecuted for the exercise of First Amendment rights before they can bring a lawsuit, provided there is a "claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Speech First, Inc. v. Schlissel