92 Wash. 2d 52 - State v. Lotze’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2012 · most notably Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1981), 26 Cal. 3d 848 - Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1980)
6 federal appellate · 21 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
Applies 23 U.S.C. § 131
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. · Shelton v. Tucker · Freedman v. Maryland · Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On and after March 30, 1972, no outdoor advertising shall be erected or maintained within six hundred sixty feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way and visible from the main traveled way of any highway which is a part of the interstate or primary system in this state except the following: (1) Directional and other official signs, including, but nor limited to, signs pertaining to natural wonders, scenic and historical attractions, which required or authorized by law, ... (2) Signs, displays, and devices advertising activities conducted on the property upon which they are located, or services and products therein provided; (3) Outdoor advertising in areas which are zoned industrial, commercial or the like as provided in sections 226.500 to 226.600 or under authority of law; (4) Outdoor advertising located in unzoned commercial or industrial areas as defined and determined pursuant to sections 226.500 to 226.-600; (5) Outdoor advertising for tourist oriented businesses, and scoreboards used in sporting events or other electronic signs with changeable messages which are not prohibited by federal regulations or local zoning ordinances. Section 226.527.1 provides: On or after August 13, 1976, no outdoor advertising shall be erected or maintained beyond six hundred and sixty feet of the right-of-way, located outside of urban areas, visible from the main traveled way of the interstate or primary system and erected with the purpose of its message being read from such traveled wa”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"We conclude that RCW 47.42 [the Washington statute being interpreted] as applied to appellants' billboards does not violate their First Amendment rights of free speech. The traffic safety rationale upheld in Markham Advertising Co. v. State, supra , and not refuted at trial in these cases is sufficiently compelling to outweigh the minimal restraint on appellants. The statutory scheme represents a reasonable place and manner limitation on speech leaving ample alternative channels of communication for appellants. Appellants' speech is not in any way being controlled as to content; its stricture is narrowly confined to place and manner. The entire panoply of means to communicate their views is open to appellants except for the limited restrictions of RCW 47.42."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the only available channel of communication to one trying to identify, rather than merely advertise his business or property.”
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.