Weiss v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
308 U.S. 321 · 1939
Citation profile
211 federal appellate · 38 district · 74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 431 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2021 · most notably Lopez v. United States (1963), Stein v. People of State of New York Wissner (1953)
211 federal appellate · 38 district · 74 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Weiss (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · Houston East West Texas Railway Company v. United States · Nardone v. United States · United States v. Louisiana
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 431 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * n0 person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person; * * * and no person having received such intercepted communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, knowing that such information was so obtained, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or use the same or any information therein contained for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto * * * ” 47 U.S.C.A. § 605 .”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We hold that the broad and inclusive language of the second clause of the section is not to be limited by construction so as to exclude intrastate communications from the protection against interception and divulgence.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““that the so-called authorization consisting of the agreement to turn state’s evidence, by some of the defendants after they had been apprized of the knowledge of their communications by the Government’s representatives, and in the hope of leniency, was not that intended or described by the statute and emphasis [sic. emphasizes?] the offensive use which may be made of intercepted messages, whether interstate or intrastate. It is not too much to assume the interdiction of the statute was intended to prevent such a method of procuring testimony.” 308 U.S. at 330-331 , 60 S.Ct. at 273 , 84 L.Ed. 298 . (Emphasis added.)”
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.