Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart’s Empirical Analysis
807 F.3d 229 · 2015
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Communications Decency Act § 230)
Relies on Elrod v. Burns · Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia · Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan · Pleasant Grove City v. Summum · Roland Machinery Company v. Dresser Industries Inc
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229, 239 (7th Cir. 2015). . The District's argument that the statement that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Commission's notices, phrased virtually as orders, reasonably understood to be such by the distributor, invariably followed up by police visitations, in fact stopped the circulation of the listed publications ex proprio vigore .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The First Amendment forbids a public official to attempt to suppress the protected speech of private persons by threatening that legal sanctions will...be imposed unless there is compliance with his demands.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. O'Donnell v. Knott
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.