Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 755 FSUPP 1281 - Act-Up v. Walp

Act-Up v. Walp’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

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

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently January 2018

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

100199120002010decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

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 · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he communication ... between the chamber and gallery works two ways: the audience listens to the political decision-making of the elected officials, and the elected officials receive the message, by the very presence of citizens in the gallery, that they are being watched, that their decisions are being scrutinized, and that they may not act with impunity outside the watchful eye of their constituents.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “In general, the grounds ... of state and federal capitol complexes ... have consistently been held to be public fora.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “the status of the gallery as a limited public forum does not give those who enter carte blanche to engage in any type of demonstrative activity they wish. The proposed activity must be compatible with the general use and activity of the locale.... Here, the visitors’ gallery has been used only for quiet observation and for passively communicating a citizen presence to legislators. It has not been used for loud or disruptive activity, and, according to the rules of the house, the Speaker may order removed any person who does not observe the decorum of the chamber.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.