Kines v. Day’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] challenge to a rule or statute may be ripe for adjudication on the question of facial constitutionality and yet not be ripe for adjudication on the question of constitutionality as applied. See, e.g., Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 , 121 & n. 50, 92 S.Ct. 2294 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972) (upholding noise control ordinance but reserving decision on constitutionality of possible applications); Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, 365 U.S. 43 , 81 S.Ct. 391 , 5 L.Ed.2d 403 (1961) (upholding ordinance requiring licensing of films prior to public exhibition) and Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968) (invalidating same ordinance as applied); Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485 , 72 S.Ct. 380 , 96 L.Ed. 517 (1952) (upholding New York statutory scheme for identifying and removing subversive school teachers) and Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 , 87 S.Ct. 675 , 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967) (invalidating portions of same statutory scheme as applied).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Whole Woman's Health v. Cole · Whole Woman's Health v. David Lakey

2. ““[a] prohibition against receipt of hardback books unless mailed directly from publishers, book clubs, or bookstores does not violate the First Amendment rights of MCC inmates. That limited restriction is a rational response by prison officials to an obvious security problem. It hardly needs to be emphasized that hardback books are especially serviceable for smuggling contraband into an institution.... “... The rule operates in a neutral fashion, without regard to the content of the expression. And there are alternative means of obtaining reading material that have not been shown to be burdensome or insufficient.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ennis v. Berg

3. “A constitutional challenge to a rule as written may constitute a case or controversy appropriate for adjudication in an Article III forum even without a showing of specific or immediate harm. See, e.g., Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 486 , 85 S.Ct. 1116, 1120 , 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965). However, once the rule has been adjudged constitutional in its face there is no presumption of harm.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Alexander v. Thornburgh