Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 F.3d 82 - United States v. Jacobs

United States v. Jacobs’s Empirical Analysis

117 F.3d 82 · 1997

Citation profile

141
cited by 141 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

49 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 141 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2020 · most notably Olson v. Accessory Controls & Equipment Corp. (2000), United States v. Carboni (2000)

49 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions

7601997200020102020decided

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 Upjohn Company v. United States · United States v. Zolin · Trident Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. · Osborne v. Brown · Von Bulow ex rel. Auersperg v. Von Bulow

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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A] party seeking to invoke the crime-fraud exception must at least demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe that a crime or fraud has been attempted or committed and that the communications were in furtherance thereof.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given the available information.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law . . . The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to foster open communication between attorneys and their clients, so that fully informed legal advice may be obtained. However, because invocation of the attorney-client privilege will necessarily exclude relevant evidence from consideration, its application must be limited in some circumstances. One such circumstance involves a waiver by the client; a second involves use of the communication in furtherance of a crime or fraud.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.