Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 91 N.H. 310 - State v. Chaplinsky

State v. Chaplinsky’s Empirical Analysis

1941

Citation profile

84
cited by 84 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

69 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 84 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire (1942), Gooding v. Wilson (1972)

69 state decisions — followed in 17 states

300194119501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Connally v. General Construction Co. · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · Thornhill v. Alabama · Schneider v. State

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.

  1. “`The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight.'”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The section of the statute involved has two provisions. The first relates to words and names applied by one directly to another in a public place. The second refers to noises or exclamations, possibly not directed to the person derided, but with the intent expressed. The two provisions are distinct. One may stand separately from the other. Assuming, without holding, that the second were unconstitutional, the first could stand if constitutional.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation.”
    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.