State v. Silva’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Santillanes v. State (1993), A.M. ex rel. F.M. v. Holmes (2016)
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 18 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
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District · Thornhill v. Alabama
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“They [i.e., the students] argue that the president was too hasty and could have moved his meeting elsewhere. There are ... answers to that argument: First, [the president] had no way of knowing how long they would stay or how many appointments they would disrupt. ... [Second], "[i]t may be, as has been suggested, that in these cases of nonviolent violation, there is 'sense in patient forbearance despite the wrong that the action involves.’ Patient forbearance, however, is the result of a prudential judgment and is not constitutionally compelled.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“after-school detention, writing lines, or [placing] a call to his parents.” Aplt.'s Opening Br. (14-2183) at 42. In rejecting the students' suggestion that their arrests were improper, the Silva court reasoned: They [i.e., the students] argue that the president was too hasty and could have moved his meeting elsewhere. There are ... answers to that argument: First, [the president] had no way of knowing how long they would stay or how many appointments they would disrupt. ... [Second],”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“willfully refusing] or failing] to leave the property of, or any building or other facility owned, operated or controlled by the governing board of any institution of higher education upon ’ being requested to do so by the chief administrative officer or his designee ... if the person is committing, threatens to commit or incites others to commit any act which would disrupt, impair, interfere with or obstruct the lawful mission, processes, procedures or functions of the institution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.