In Re Salvatore Bonanno, and Proceedings Before October 1964 Additional Grand Jury’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably Bulow Auersperg v. Bulow, Bowne of New York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp. (1993)
3 district · 4 state decisions
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
Applies 47 U.S.C. § 409
Relies on In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. · Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. United States · Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board · United States v. Kovel
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“That burden is not, of course, discharged by mere conclusory or ipse dixit assertions, for any such rule would foreclose meaningful inquiry into the existence of the relationship, and any spurious claims could never be exposed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Moreover, we have not been referred to a single case authorizing disclosure of a witness’ testimony during the pendency of grand jury investigations, traditionally surrounded with a shroud of secrecy that should be removed ‘discretely and limitedly.’ United States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 683 , 7 S.Ct. 983 , 2 L. Ed.2d 1077 (1958). As we said recently, ‘Only when justice requires it or when the advantages gained by secrecy are clearly outweighed by a countervailing interest in disclosure, e. g., when there is a particularized need for the minutes, should the veil be lifted.’ United States v. Marchisio, 344 F.2d 653 , (2 Cir. April 9, 1965). The District Court acted well within the bounds of its discretion in refusing to apply those carefully limited exceptions to this case, where secrecy was necessary in an ongoing probe ‘so that others under investigation and other prospective witnesses might not be warned of what had been asked and answered and so aided in thwarting the inquiry.’ United States v. Tramunti, 343 F.2d 548 , (2 Cir. April 5, 1965).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.