In Re Bruce R. Lindsey (Grand Jury Testimony)’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
34 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably 297 F. Supp. 2d 252 - Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Postal Service (2004), 960 F. Supp. 2d 101 - National Security Counselors v. Central Intelligence Agency (2013)
34 district · 6 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
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Berger v. United States · United States v. Nixon · Upjohn Company v. United States · Elkins v. United States
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“acting as a lawyer and the communication was made 'for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“We have little doubt that at least me of Lindsey’s conversations subject to grand jury questioning “concerned the seeking of legal advice” and was between President Clinton and Lindsey or between others in the White House and Lindsey while Lindsey was “acting in his professional capacity” as an attorney. Before the grand jury, Lindsey spoke of many instances when legal advice would clearly have been appropriate, ... and he specifically affirmed that there were times when White House staff members came to him in his role as a member of the White House Counsel’s Office.... Furthermore, there were times when Lindsey only invoked executive privilege, ... at least implying that he invoked attorney-client privilege only when he thought it appropriate to do so. The issue whether the government attorney-client privilege could be invoked in these circumstances is therefore ripe for decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he discussions at issue are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. Ms. Mills, Mr. Lindsey and I are the senior lawyers in the Office of the White House Counsel and, as such, represent both the Executive Of fice of the President and the President in his official capacity. At the time of the ’60 Minutes’ interview, one of our principal responsibilities was to provide legal advice to the President in connection with any impeachment proceedings____ It was in this context that, in determining what advice to give to the President, we considered, among other things, whether there were any legal constraints on the ability of the EOP to release the letters and the implications of releasing them.”
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.