Polykoff v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
816 F.2d 1326 · 1987
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 9 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably United States v. Savinovich (1988), Bouman v. Block (1991)
40 federal appellate · 9 district · 7 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Railroad Commission v. Pullman 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in the federal court.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It may be true that the stiff[] RICO penalties will provide an additional deterrent to those who might otherwise sell obscene materials; perhaps this means ... that some cautious booksellers will practice self-censorship and remove first amendment protected materials from their shelves. But deterrence of the sale of obscene materials is a legitimate end of ... obscenity laws and our cases have long recognized the practical reality that “any form of criminal obscenity statute applicable to a bookseller will induce some tendency to self-censorship and have some inhibitory effect on the dissemination of material not obscene.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“stores are unfounded. In fact, as noted above, the fines actually imposed to date have been modest. The record does not indicate that any stores pulled adult materials off the shelves on the basis of a correct understanding of Arizona's felony fine system. Any chilling effect that may have been based on an incorrect understanding of the law is not constitutionally cognizable. Cf. Laird, 408 U.S. at 13-14 , 92 S.Ct. at 2325-26 (holding that an allegation of mere”
2 later decisions 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.