Cispes v. Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Empirical Analysis
770 F.2d 468 · 1985
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Terry v. Reno (1996), 624 So. 2d 874 - Chamberlain v. State, Through DOTD (1993)
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 112 · 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000) · 42 U.S.C. § 1971 (Civil Rights Act of 1957) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000A · 42 U.S.C. § 3617 (§ 818 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 47 U.S.C. § 223
Relies on Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Grayned v. City of Rockford · United States v. O'Brien · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Connally v. General Construction Co.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he concern with an overbroad statute stems . . . from the possibility that the threat of its application may deter others from engaging in otherwise protected expression.” CISPES v. FBI, 770 F.2d 468, 472 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 , 33 L. Ed. 2d 222 , 92 S. Ct. 2294 (1972)). However, when used to invalidate a statute on its face, the overbreadth doctrine has been held”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a general savings provision 'cannot substantively operate to save an otherwise invalid statute, since it is a mere restatement of well-settled constitutional restrictions on the construction of statutory enactments.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]othing contained in this section shall be construed or applied so as to abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Seals v. McBee · Finzer v. Barry
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.