Miller v. Pancucci’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Commercial Financial Corp. (2000), Soto v. City of Concord (1995)
1 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 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. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Graham v. Connor · Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders · United States v. Zolin · Garrett v. City & County of San Francisco
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) an affirmation that the agency generated or collected the material in issue and has in fact maintained its confidentiality (if the agency has shared some or all of the material with other governmental agencies it must disclose their identity and describe the circumstances surrounding the disclosure, including steps taken to assure preservation of the confidentiality of the material), (2) a statement that the official has personally reviewed the material in question, (3) a specific identification of the governmental or privacy interests that would be threatened by disclosure of the material to plaintiff and/or his lawyer, (4) a description of how disclosure subject to a carefully crafted protective order would create a substantial risk of harm to significant governmental or privacy interest, (5) and a projection of how much harm would be done to the threatened interests if the disclosure were made.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This procedure is essential since the Court is ill-equipped to make any intelligent decisions as to discoverability during an in camera inspection when it has insufficient information from the resisting party as to why disclosure should not be permitted.”
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.