Vogel v. Gruaz’s Empirical Analysis
110 U.S. 311 · 1884
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 16 district · 116 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 276 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1997 · most notably Roviaro v. United States (1957), McCray v. State of Illinois (1967)
76 federal appellate · 16 district · 116 state decisions — followed in 27 states
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 Worthington v. Scribner · Oliver v. Pate
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 276 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is the duty and the right, not only of every peace officer of the United States, but of every citizen, to assist in prosecuting, and in securing the punishment of, any breach of the peace of the United States. It is the right, as well as the duty, of every citizen, when called upon by the proper officer, to act as part of the posse comitatus in upholding the laws of his country. It is likewise his right and his duty to communicate to the executive officers any information which he has of the commission of an offense against those laws; and such information, given by a private citizen, is a privileged and confidential communication, for which no action of libel or slander will lie, and the disclosure of which cannot be compelled without the assent of the government.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It was said to Mr. Cook while he was State’s attorney, or prosecutor of crimes, for the county, and while he was acting in that capacity, if all this had taken place between Bircher and an attorney, consulted by him, who did not hold the public position which Mr. Cook did, clearly the communication would have been privileged. Under the circumstances shown, Mr. Cook was the professional adviser of Bircher, consulted by him, on a statement of his case, to leam his opinion as to whether there was ground in fact and in law for making an attempt to procure an indictment against Gruaz. The fact that Mr. Cook held the position of public prosecutor, and was not paid by Bircher for information or advice, did not destroy the relation which the law established between them. It made that relation more sacred on the ground of public policy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gabriel v. McMullin
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.