Ellwest Stereo Theatres, Inc. v. Wenner’s Empirical Analysis
681 F.2d 1243 · 1982
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 6 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably United States v. McConney (1984), Swank v. Smart (1990)
30 federal appellate · 6 district · 13 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 Katz v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · United States v. O'Brien
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The prohibition of enclosed or concealed booths in picture arcades easily passes this test. The city has the constitutional power to reasonably regulate and license arcades for purposes of health, safety and public welfare. [Citations.] “As was pointed out in People v. Perrine [(1975)] 47 Cal.App.3d [252], 258 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 640 ]: ‘A picture arcade is a business, carried on in a place which the public generally is invited to enter and use. Since it is a place of entertainment, its patrons are not expected to enter with the solemnity of a business visitor at a mercantile establishment. Ordinarily those entering a picture arcade are seeking amusement, relaxation or excitement, possibly sexual stimulation or gratification, depending on the taste or mood of the individual and the kind of pictures exhibited. Among such visitors it is foreseeable that some will be predisposed to conduct which is offensive, dangerous to others and even unlawful. The potential for misuse of the premises, for law violations, and for bodily harm to law-abiding patrons, is obvious, as is the concomitant need for [deterring such conduct].’ “The city has a substantial interest in preventing the kind of dangerous or unlawful conduct, as well as the health and safety problems, which may be anticipated in a picture arcade where the booths are concealed or enclosed. The prohibition of such booths furthers the city’s interest in deterring and detecting the use of the premises for such unlawful activity. “Th”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Declined to equate the privacy of the home relied on in Stanley with a “zone” of “privacy” that follows a distributor or a consumer of obscene materials wherever he goes. [Citations omitted.] The idea of a “privacy” right and a place of public accommodation are, in this context, mutually exclusive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“We decline to hold that the “right” to unobserved masturbation in a public theater is “fundamental” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.