Thorne v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis
846 F.2d 241 · 1988
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. Singh (2005), Galloway v. State (2001)
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 47 U.S.C. § 223
Relies on Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Wayte v. United States · City of Houston v. Hill
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he government has a strong and legitimate interest in preventing the harassment of individuals.... `Prohibiting harassment is not prohibiting speech, because harassment is not a protected speech. Harassment is not communication, although it may take the form of speech.'”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) It shall be unlawful for any person with intent to harass or abuse another by means of telephone to: (1) Make any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene; or (2) Make a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to harass any person at the called number; or (3) Make or cause the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or (4) Make repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or (5) Threaten to commit a crime against any person or property.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“not a censorial statute, directed at any group or viewpoint”
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.