Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 316 U.S. 129 - Goldman v. United States

Goldman v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

316 U.S. 129 · 1942

Citation profile

1,068
cited by 1,068 later decisions
81
cited 81 times by the Supreme Court
35
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

481 federal appellate · 51 district · 290 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,068 later decisions (81 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably Katz v. United States (1967), Rakas v. Illinois (1979)

481 federal appellate · 51 district · 290 state decisions — followed in 35 states

3280194219501960197019801990200020102020decided

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. Goldman (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Boyd v. United States · Weeks v. United States · Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States · Olmstead v. United States · United States v. Classic

Cited together with Olmstead v. United States · Katz v. United States · Silverman v. United States · On Lee v. United States · Nardone 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 1,068 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We think it the better rule that where a witness does not use his notes or memoranda in court, a party has no absolute right to have them produced and to inspect them.””
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “* * * As has rightly been held, this word [intercept] indicates the taking or seizure by the way or before arrival at the destined place. It does not ordinarily connote the obtaining of what is to be sent before, or at the moment, it leaves the possession of the proposed sender, or after, or at the moment, it comes into the possession of the intended receiver.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he search of one's home or office no longer requires physical entry for science has brought forth far more effective devices for the invasion of a person's privacy than the direct and obvious methods of oppression which were detested by our forbears and which inspired the Fourth Amendment. . . . Whether the search of private quarters is accomplished by placing on the outer walls of the sanctum a detectaphone that transmits to the outside listener the intimate details of a private conversation, or by new methods of photography that penetrate walls or overcome distances, the privacy of the citizen is equally invaded by the Government and intimate personal matters are laid bare to view.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.