Olivieri v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
801 F.2d 602 · 1986
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably New York State National Organization for Women v. Terry (1989), Startzell v. City of Philadelphia (2008)
13 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 · Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent · Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley · Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence · Grayned v. City of Rockford
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he message ... that they are members of the Catholic Church which they do not forsake because of their homosexuality.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Ordinarily, a court would simply rule on the constitutional validity of the restraints imposed and refrain from devising its own plan. Yet here time constraints forced the district court — and this Court, too — to choose between striking down defendants’ [restriction] or deferring to government imposed limitations on First Amendment rights. Neither alternative was desirable: to choose the former risks ignoring public safety concerns because demonstrators and counterdemonstrators would at the same time occupy the [forum]; by choosing the latter, a court abdicates its independent responsibility to examine the constitutionality of First Amendment restrictions — it simply adopts them. The scheme devised by the district court steered a middle course between these extremes— limiting [plaintiff’s members, yet upholding the exercise of their communicative rights. Obviously under such circumstances courts must and do have the power to rule in this fashion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he critical questions — as a practical matter — are (1) how many individuals need to be on the sidewalk to convey Dignity’s message and the Committee’s messages with some impact to the line of marchers and to the public, and (2) how can the size, positioning, and timing of these competing groups be accommodated to legitimate public safety concerns.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.