Doe v. Prosecutor, Marion County’s Empirical Analysis
705 F.3d 694 · 2013
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3583
Relies on Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Ward v. Rock Against Racism · Procunier v. Martinez · Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent · Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation .... So long as the means chosen are not substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government’s interest, . . . the regulation will not be invalid simply because a court concludes that the government’s interest could be adequately served by some less-speech-restrictive alternative.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]here is nothing dangerous about Doe’s use of social media as long as he does not improperly communicate with minors. Further, there is no disagreement that illicit communication comprises a minuscule subset of the universe of social network activity. As such, the Indiana law targets substantially more activity than the evil it seeks to redress.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t broadly prohibits substantial protected speech rather than specifically targeting the evil of improper communications to minors.” Id. However, the statute at issue in Marion County is distinguishable from SORA. Whereas the Indiana statute prohibited certain registrants from using social networking websites, SORA does not bar any speech on the Internet, but rather imposes reporting requirements. . The District of Nebraska rejected a due process challenge to the retroactive application of Nebraska’s sex offender registration laws holding that retroactive application of the laws”
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.