Eastern Connecticut Citizens Action Group v. Powers’s Empirical Analysis
723 F.2d 1050 · 1983
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2013 · most notably Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992), Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. City of Santa Monica (2006)
23 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 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 · Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n · William Marbury v. James Madison · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While the state has a legitimate interest in protecting itself from liability for injuries associated with the use of its property .... [a]bsent a showing that those carefully-crafted remedies [marchers’ efforts to minimize risk of injury or dam age, waivers of claims against the state, and existing civil and criminal sanctions for trespassing, vandalism, etc.] are unavailing in this instance, the state may not insist upon broader restrictions which substantially infringe constitutional rights.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the state could automatically bar speech on its property by the simple expedient of closing it to all potential users, the protection of vital First Amendment rights would be placed beyond the purview of the courts. We cannot accept a principle that would vest such discretionary power in a state administrative agency, or that would infringe so deeply upon our own duty to “say what the law is.” When the state acts in a manner which threatens to impair free expression by its citizenry, it is required, when requested, to place its reasons before a court for a determination of their conformity to constitutional norms.”
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.