Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 232 F.2d 855 - Schwimmer v. United States

Schwimmer v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

232 F.2d 855 · 1956

Citation profile

231
cited by 231 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

123 federal appellate · 20 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 231 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2016 · most notably Fisher v. United States (1976), United States v. Nobles (1975)

123 federal appellate · 20 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 13 states

9201956196019701980199020002010decided

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 Hickman v. Taylor · Boyd v. United States · Edwin Hale v. William Henkel · Perlman v. United States · In Re Peterson

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 231 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"Relevance and materiality necessarily are terms of broader content in their use as to a grand jury investigation than in their use as to the evidence of a trial. They must be given practical meaning in relation to the functions which a grand jury is designed to serve and to the realities which are necessary in any expeditious carrying-on of its operations. Thus, a grand jury has no catalog of what books and papers exist and are involved in a situation with which it is attempting to deal, nor will it ordinarily have any basis for knowing what their character or contents immediately are. It can therefore hardly be expected to be able to designate or call for what its exact needs may ultimately turn out to be. And since the path which it is entitled to travel in its search for probable cause has no general limits except those of reasonableness on the entirety of the situation being pursued, it obviously has a right, as against the objection of unreasonable search and seizure, to a fair margin of reach and material in seeking information, not merely direct but also as a matter of possible light on seemingly related aspects whose significance it is seeking to uncover. Some exploration or fishing necessarily is inherent and entitled to exist in all documentary productions sought by a grand jury.””
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[b]eyond the provisions of [Fed.R.Civ.P. 53] for appointing and making references to Masters, a federal district court has the inherent power to supply itself with [a special master] for the administration of justice when deemed by it essential.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““[t]he law recognizes no distinction between constructive possession, with control, and physical possession, as a basis for a subpoena to compel production, so that such process directed to and served upon an owner, who is in constructive possession and control, is as legally capable of commanding the production of his books and papers as is one against a third party, who is in physical possession of them for him.” 232 F.2d 855, 860 .”
    3 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.