In re Sealed Case’s Empirical Analysis
223 F.3d 775 · 2000
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2021 · most notably United States v. Farner (2001), 135 S. Ct. 352 - Whitman v. United States (2014)
13 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 1826 · 2 U.S.C. § 431 (§ 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) · 2 U.S.C. § 437C (§ 306 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) · 2 U.S.C. § 437G (§ 309 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) · 2 U.S.C. § 441E (§ 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Auer v. Robbins · Christensen v. Harris County · Shillitani 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“United States v. Hsu, 155 F.3d 189 , 199 n.16 (3d Cir. 1998) (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]here are slight[ ] ... differences in the formulation of the test for the crime-fraud exception as applied to the two privileges in question, attorney-client and work-product. To establish the exception to the attorney-client privilege, the court must consider whether the client “made or received the otherwise privileged communication with the intent to further an unlawful or fraudulent act,” and establish that the client actually “carried out the crime or fraud.” In re Sealed Case, 107 F.3d 46, 49 (D.C.Cir.1997). To establish the exception to the work-product privilege, courts ask a slightly different question, focusing on the client’s general purpose in consulting the lawyer rather than on his intent regarding the particular communication: “Did the client consult the lawyer or use the material for the purpose of committing a crime or fraud?” Id. at 51 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[d]eference is due as much in a criminal context as in any other for interpretations made outside that context, such as those found in published regulations”
2 later decisions 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.