Gonzales v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Branzburg v. Hayes · Bulow Auersperg v. Bulow · United States v. Burke · Gray v. Board of Higher Education · Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation McGraw-Hill Inc v. States of Arizona California Florida Oregon and Washington
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[c]ompelling production of the tapes [was] further supported by the fact that no confidential information [was] at issue here.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“they would provide unique evidence of both his proper behavior and his veracity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to their claim because they were seeking punitive damages and injunctive relief, and such relief can only be attained upon a showing of a pattern or practice of conduct. The court also found that the evidence the Gonzaleses sought would not be obtainable from other available sources. 10 The district court held that Deputy Pierce's need for the tapes was equally compelling. If the tapes demonstrated that Deputy Pierce had probable cause to stop the Dateline car,”
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.