In Re Samuel R. PIERCE, Jr. (Abrams Fee Application)’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
March 2014
most recently cited
1 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Kastigar v. United States · Olson v. 86-1 · In Re Oliver L. North (Dutton Fee Application) · In Re Oliver L. North (Bush Fee Application) · In re Sealed Case
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is not sufficient to meet the elemental requirement of `subject' designation for purposes of the Act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“without subjecting the petitioning subject to the conditions that led to his incurring the fees sought. In re Segal (Sagawa Fee Application), 151 F.3d 1085 , 1089 (D.C.Cir., Spec.Div., 1998) (per curiam) (quoting In re Nofziger, 925 F.2d at 438 ). 23 4. Not wholly distinct from no. 3, supra, when”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the investigation into the allegations concerning Mr. Jordan would have been quickly disposed of but for the requirements of the Act and had Mr. Jordan not been a prominent Washington attorney and a personal friend of President Clinton.”
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.