Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 812 F.2d 1194 - Monterey County Democratic Central Committee v. United States Postal Service

Monterey County Democratic Central Committee v. United States Postal Service’s Empirical Analysis

812 F.2d 1194 · 1987

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2016 · most notably United States v. Kokinda (1990), Kreisner v. City of San Diego (1993)

28 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

1901987199020002010decided

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 39 U.S.C. § 403

Relies on Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n · Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley · Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. · Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. · United States v. Grace

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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he viability of equal protection claims relating to expressive conduct is contingent upon the existence of a public forum. Only when rights of access associated with a public forum are improperly limited may we conclude that a fundamental right is impinged.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “rationally further a legitimate state purpose.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he right to make distinctions in access on the basis of subject matter and speaker identity. These distinctions may be impermissible in a public forum but are inherent and inescapable in the process of limiting a nonpublic forum to activities compatible with the intended purpose of the property. The touchstone for evaluating these distinctions is whether they are reasonable in light of the purpose which the forum at issue serves.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.