In Re: Eli J Segal’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 2016
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Olson v. 86-1 · In Re Oliver L. North (Dutton Fee Application) · In Re Oliver L. North (Bush Fee Application) · In re Sealed Case · Nofziger v. 87-1
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the Department of Justice would in all likelihood exercise its discretion to decline to prosecute this case as a criminal matter ... I nevertheless am compelled by the terms of the Independent Counsel Act to apply for the appointment of an Independent Counsel. '”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Segal · In re: Eli J. Segal“) was established on October 1, 1993. President Clinton selected Segal as the Corporation's first Chief Executive Officer. The mission of the Corporation was to manage the federal government's community service programs. To that end, the National and Community Trust Act authorized the Corporation to solicit and accept donations of money and property. 5 Segal and other employees of the Corporation, however, believing that some foundations and corporations would be unwilling or unable to contribute to a federal agency, incorporated the Partnership for National Service (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re: Eli J. Segal“We agree with the IC. Segal has not established that such a letter was relevant to his defense. 45 The second entry objected to is dated February 3, 1997, by Joseph Young for $117.50 for a meeting and telephone conference with Ty Cobb, who had redacted his own time for that day. The IC presumes that this redaction was done because the work was not related to Segal's defense, and he therefore argues that Young's time should have been redacted as well. The third entry is objected to for the same reason: on April 22, 1997, Cobb billed for”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re: Eli J. Segal
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.