Sullivan v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

158 federal appellate · 21 district · 18 state decisions

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 282 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * It was simply a housekeeping provision of the Department and was not intended to curtail or limit the well-recognized power of the grand jury to consider and investigate any alleged crime within its jurisdiction. See United States v. Thompson, 251 U.S. 407, 413-415 , [ 40 S.Ct. 289 , 64 L.Ed. 333 ] ; Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282 , [ 39 S.Ct. 468 , 63 L.Bd. 979]; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61-66 , [ 26 S.Ct. 370 , 50 L.Ed. 652 ]; Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 163 , [ 15 S.Ct. 586 , 39 L.Ed. 657 ]. “Therefore, it is not contended that, aside from the Executive Order and the departmental letter, a grand jury may not consider evidence of crime known to the grand jurors or revealed by their investigation. It is only urged that the Executive Order and the departmental letter limited the action of the grand jury in respect to cases concerning violations of internal revenue laws. We hold that the Order and the letter had no such restrictive effect, and that the grand jury in this case was free to consider the evidence put before it by Government counsel without authorization from the Attorney General’s office in Washington. The evidence was presented by the District Attorney, who was a representative of the Department of Justice, notwithstanding that he failed to comply with the departmental directive. For this he is answerable to the Department, but his action before the grand jury was not subject to attack by one indicted by the grand jury on such e”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Berkovitz · 315 F. Supp. 662 - In Re Presentment of Special Grand Jury

2. ““. . . simply a housekeeping provision of the Department and was not intended to curtail or limit the well-recognized power of the grand jury to consider and investigate any alleged crime within its jurisdiction.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 394 F. Supp. 1022 - Haley v. United States · United States v. Hutul

3. ““. . . all United States Attorneys are directed to present evidence to a grand jury concerning violations of revenue laws of the United States only when authorized to do so by this office, unless an emergency calls for immediate action, in which event a full report should promptly be submitted.” See Sullivan v. United States, supra, at footnote no. 3. (Emphasis supplied).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 394 F. Supp. 1022 - Haley v. United States