Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 340 U.S. 332 - Blau v. United States

Blau v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

340 U.S. 332 · 1951

Citation profile

461
cited by 461 later decisions
28
cited 28 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
August 2019
most recently cited

235 federal appellate · 15 district · 73 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 461 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Pereira v. United States (1954), Hoffman v. United States (1951)

235 federal appellate · 15 district · 73 state decisions — followed in 20 states

12301951196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedRogers v. United States. Wertheimer v. United States. Blau v. United States. Bary v. United States. Kleinbord v. United States (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Pinkerton v. United States · Hirabayashi v. United States · Wolfle v. United States · Blau 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 461 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he Government insists that [the party claiming the privilege] should be denied the benefit of the privilege because he failed to prove that the information was privately conveyed. This contention ignores the rule that marital communications are presumptively confidential. The Government made no effort to overcome the presumption.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"The basis of the immunity given to communications between husband and wife is the protection of marital confidences, regarded as so essential to the preservation of the marriage relationship as to outweigh the disadvantages to the administration of justice which the privilege entails. ..... "The privilege suppresses relevant testimony and should be allowed only when it is plain that marital confidence can not otherwise reasonably be preserved. Nothing in this case suggests any such necessity."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “wherever a communication, because of its nature or the circumstances under which it was made, was obviously not intended to be confidential, it is not a privileged communication.”
    1 later decision 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.