9 Cal. 3d 405 - Crownover v. Musick’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 108 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions — most recently February 2010 · most notably 40 Cal. 3d 277 - Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985), 25 Cal. 3d 238 - Pryor v. Municipal Court (1979)
15 federal appellate · 108 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 United States v. O'Brien · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Cohen v. California · Coates v. City of Cincinnati · Winters v. People of State of New York
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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The grounds for distinction between O'Brien and the present case are manifold. O'Brien involved a law which prohibited burning of draft cards wherever that conduct occurred, and which did not on its face aim at regulation of protected speech; the ordinances at bar proscribe nudity only when it occurs in the context of protected communicative entertainment. The act of burning a draft card bears no integral relation to protected communication; the costuming of an entertainer is unquestionably an integral part of the entertainment. The language in O'Brien on which the majority rely discusses the constitutionality of a law regulating conduct as applied to an act of `symbolic speech'; the present case concerns the constitutionality on its face of ordinances regulating protected activity. [¶] Finally, and most important, in O'Brien the court extended limited First Amendment protection to `symbolic speech' conduct which, normally noncommunicative, is invested with symbolic significance by the protestant. The present case has nothing to do with symbolic speech. It has nothing to do with protest. It concerns communicative entertainment, an activity which heretofore has been entitled not to limited but to full protection under the First Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The adoption of this theory would let the censor loose without constitutional restriction to condemn at will any and all communicative entertainment. While avoiding reference to the actor's speech, the state could ban his gestures, his costuming (or amount of costuming), the positioning of the actors, the lighting of the stage, or whatever other `conduct' it chooses.... If a county seeks to prohibit entertainers, or participants in a public demonstration, from wearing long hair, unfashionable dress, or uniforms [citation omitted], the majority opinion can be construed to uphold such legislation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Every person ... who acts as a waiter, waitress or entertainer in any establishment which serves food, beverages, or food and beverages, including, but not limited to alcoholic beverages ... or ... participat[es] in any live act, demonstration or exhibition in any public place, place open to the public or place open to public view, and who performs such activity in the nude ... is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
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.