New York City Unemployed & Welfare Council v. Brezenoff’s Empirical Analysis
677 F.2d 232 · 1982
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently September 2006 · most notably SDJ, Inc. v. City of Houston (1988), Musso v. Hourigan (1988)
28 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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
Relies on Grayned v. City of Rockford · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Roth v. United States
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... If, however, an area is not public forum, but is one used by the government to perform some non-speech related function, it may nevertheless be “appropriate” for the exercise of First Amendment activities if that exercise does not interfere with the primary activity for which it is intended, ... and if that exercise does not infringe the rights of a captive audience ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“unable to conclude that the district court properly applied [First Amendment] principles ... since there [was] no indication that the court gave any consideration to whether the total ban is the least restrictive means of preventing the false impressions that defendants fear.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that welfare clients, on being solicited, are likely to be misled into believing that the [Council representatives] are employed by the HRA or that payment of a fee [to the Council] is a prerequisite to the receipt of welfare benefits.”
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.