Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 392 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from City of Houston v. Hill.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City of Houston v. Hill Anchor | green | “the first amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.” | 160 |
| 2 | City of Houston v. Hill | green | “the freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.” | 118 |
| 3 | City of Houston v. Hill | green | “oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty” | 38 |
| 4 | Duran v. City of Douglas | green | “while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the first amendment.” | 20 |
| 5 | State v. Schaler | green | “bear the wording of threats but which are in fact merely jokes, idle talk, or hyperbole” | 13 |
| 6 | State v. Bradshaw | red | “ameliorates the harshness of the strict liability crime” | 9 |
| 7 | James E. McCurdy v. Montgomery County, Ohio | red | “there can be no doubt that the freedom to express disagreement with state action, without fear of reprisal based on the expression, is unequivocally among the protections provided by the first amendment.” | 8 |
| 8 | State v. Williams | green | “conduct in addition to pure speech in order to establish obstruction of an officer” | 8 |
| 9 | State v. CG | green | “depends on all the facts and circumstances, and it is not proper to limit the inquiry to a literal translation of the words spoken.” | 7 |
| 10 | State v. Williams | green | “concern that criminalizing pure speech would implicate freedom of speech.” | 4 |
| 11 | State v. Williams | green | “in order to find obstruction statutes constitutional, appellate courts of this state have long required conduct.” | 4 |
| 12 | Wilson v. Kittoe | green | “when protected speech is added to the equation in punishing an individual for refusing to comply with an order to disperse,” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.