Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 859 S.W.2d 1 - Ex Parte Tucci

Ex Parte Tucci’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
6
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably 22 Cal. 4th 352 - L.A. All. for Survival v. City of Los Angeles (2000), Bentley v. Bunton (2002)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 39 state decisions

2301993200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston))

Relationships

Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Roe v. Wade · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Ward v. Rock Against Racism · Garrison v. State of Louisiana

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

  1. “every person shall be at liberty to speak,”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “The purpose of [Article I, Section 8] is to preserve what we call ‘liberty of speech’ and ‘the freedom of the press,’ and at the same time hold all persons accountable to the law for the misusé of that liberty or freedom. Responsibility for the abuse of the privilege is as fully emphasized by its language as that the privilege itself shall be free from all species of restraint. But the abuse of the privilege, the provision commands, shall be dealt with in no other way. It is not to be remedied by denial of the right to speak, but only by appropriate penalties for what is wrongfully spoken. Punishment for the abuse of the right, not prevention of its exercise, is what the provision contemplates. There can be no liberty in the individual to speak, without the unhindered right to speak. It cannot co-exist with a power to compel his silence or fashion the form of his speech. Responsibility for the abuse of the right, in its nature pre-supposes freedom in the exercise of the right. It is a denial of the authority, anywhere, to prevent its exercise.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Nor does the opinion of the unconstitutionality and consequent nullity of [the Sedition Act of 1798] remove all restraint from the overwhelming torrent of slander which is confounding all vice and virtue, all truth and falsehood in the U.S. The power to do that is fully possessed by the several state legislatures. It was reserved to them, and was denied to the general government, by the constitution according to our construction of it. While we deny that Congress have [sic] a right to [control] the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the states, and their exclusive right, to do so.... In general the state laws appear to have made the presses responsible for slander as far as is consistent with their useful freedom.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.