In re Leopold’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2519 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2702 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2705 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2707 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2713 (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3105 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000A (Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Katz v. United States · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · United States v. Leon · See v. City of Seattle
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that the First Amendment would entitle the petitioners to the same degree of access as 'that to which the Court already has determined the petitioners are entitled under the common law.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Granick“[t]hese considerations illustrate that logic weighs against any broader right of access under the First Amendment than that which the Court has already recognized under the common law,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Granick“sought relief only as to closed investigations,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Granick
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.