Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 708 SO2D 929 - Doe v. Mortham

Doe v. Mortham’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
2
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently August 2018

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions

110199820002010decided

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 Buckley v. Valeo · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · First National Bank of Boston v. X Bellotti · Gooding v. Wilson

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

  1. “[a]ny political advertisement paid for by an independent expenditure shall prominently state ‘Paid political advertisement paid for by (Name of person or committee paying for the advertisement) independently of any (candidate or committee),' and requiring that”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[I]t is [the Supreme Court's] duty to save Florida statutes from the constitutional dustbin whenever possible.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “It remains a "matter of no little difficulty" to determine when a law may properly be held void on its face and when "such summary action" is inappropriate. But the plain import of our cases is, at the very least, that facial overbreadth adjudication is an exception to our traditional rules of practice and that its function [is a] limited [one].... To put the matter another way ... we believe that the overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep. It is our view that [the Oklahoma statute] is not substantially overbroad and that whatever overbreadth may exist should be cured through case-by-case analysis of the fact situations to which its sanctions, assertedly, may not be applied.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.