710 So. 2d 635 - Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Davis' free speech argument is also unavailing. The ordinance addresses noise not speech. In Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 , 104 S.Ct. 3065, 3068-69 , 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984), the United States Supreme Court held that it is appropriate to impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of protected speech. In order for the regulation to be valid, it must: (1) be content neutral; (2) narrowly tailored; and (3) leave open alternative channels. The ordinance herein does not address content at all; it narrows its application to sounds that are plainly audible 100 feet or further away; and it permits one to listen to anything he or she wishes so long as it cannot be heard at the prohibited distance. In other words, the statute permits one to listen to anything he or she pleases, although not as loudly as one pleases....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Montgomery v. State

2. “This noise code is not vague. One may not play his or her car radio so loudly that it is plainly audible to another standing 100 feet or further away. Noise ordinances based on distances beyond which the sound may not be audible have been upheld. See State v. Ewing, 81 Hawai'i 156 , 914 P.2d 549 (1996); City of Portland v. Ayers, 93 Or.App. 731 , 764 P.2d 556 (1988), rev. denied, 308 Or. 79 , 775 P.2d 322 (1989).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Montgomery v. State