In Re Oliver L. North (Omnibus Order)’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably In re Motions of Dow Jones & Co. (1998), In re Sealed Case No. 98-3077 (1998)
23 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 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 Blanchette v. Connecticut General Insurance Corporations · Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. · Buckley v. Fitzsimmons · Douglas Oil Company of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest · United States v. Johnson
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he filing of reports by Independent Counsels is `a complete departure from the authority of a United States Attorney' and is `contrary to the practice in federal grand jury investigations.'”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[1] whether the subjects of the .investigations have already been disclosed to the public; [2] whether the subjects do not object to the filings being released to the public; [3] whether the filings contain information which is already publicly known; and [4] whether the court filings consist of legal or factual rulings in a ease which should be publicly available to understand the court’s rules and precedents or to follow the developments in a particular matter.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Espy · In re Cisneros“(1) disclosure of pre-indictment proceedings would make many prospective witnesses “hesitant to come forward voluntarily, knowing that those against whom they testify would be aware of that testimony”; (2) witnesses who did appear “would be less likely to testify fully and frankly as they would be open to retribution as well as inducements”; and (3) there “would be the risk that those about to be indicted would flee or would try to influence individual grand jurors to vote against indictment.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.