Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 353 U.S. 391 - Grunewald v. United States

Grunewald v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

2,498
cited by 2,498 later decisions
82
cited 82 times by the Supreme Court
41
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

1,348 federal appellate · 139 district · 499 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 2,498 later decisions (82 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2025 · most notably Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera (1966), Doyle v. Ohio (1976)

1,348 federal appellate · 139 district · 499 state decisions — followed in 41 states

658019571960197019801990200020102020decided

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. Grunewald (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282 · 18 U.S.C. § 371

Relies on Weeks v. United States · McNabb v. United States · Krulewitch v. United States · Lutwak v. United States

Cited together with Krulewitch v. United States · Lutwak v. United States · Glasser v. United States · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Griffin v. California

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 2,498 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a conspiracy to conceal ... being implied from elements which will be present in virtually every conspiracy case, that is, secrecy plus overt acts of concealment.”
    63 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “between acts of concealment done in furtherance of the main criminal objectives of the conspiracy, and acts of concealment done after these central objectives have been attained, for the purpose only of covering up after the crime.”
    41 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. ““I can think of no special circumstances that would justify use of a constitutional privilege to discredit or convict a person who asserts it. The value of constitutional privileges is largely destroyed if persons can be penalized for relying on them.””
    34 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.