201 F. App'x 430 - Wolf v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
August 2008
most recently cited
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 844 · 28 U.S.C. § 1826
Relies on Branzburg v. Hayes · Fisher v. United States · United States v. Hubbell · Battaglia v. United States · Scarce 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Wolf and amici also argue that the district court’s order will have a chilling effect on Wolfs ability to gather news because groups will perceive him as being an investigative arm of the law. This argument has also been rejected by the Supreme Court. See Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 699-700 , 92 S.Ct. 2646 (‘From the beginning of our country the press has operated without constitutional protection for press informants, and the press has flourished. The existing constitutional rules have not been a serious obstacle to either the development or retention of confidential news sources by the press.’).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.