Zal v. Steppe’s Empirical Analysis
968 F.2d 924 · 1992
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Eng v. Cooley (2009), Mezibov v. Allen (2005)
38 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Roe v. Wade · Allen v. Wright · Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence · Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[D]icta of the Supreme Court have a weight that is greater than ordinary judicial dicta as prophesy of what that Court might hold. We should not blandly shrug them off because they were not a holding.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Under our current system, the trial judge is charged with preserving the decorum that permits a reasoned resolution of issues. Zealous counsel cannot flout that authority behind the shield of the First Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sammartano“Traditional First Amendment analysis also supports the idea that lawyers (and others) have no First Amendment right to speak freely in a courtroom: a courtroom is not a public forum. ...”
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.