McPhaul v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

109 federal appellate · 22 district · 32 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 277 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is not reasonable to suppose that the Subcommittee knew precisely what books and records were kept by the Civil Rights Congress, and therefore the subpoena could only “specif [y] * * * with reasonable particularity the subjects to which the documents * * * relate.” Brown v. United States, 276 U.S. 134, 143 , 48 S.Ct. 288, 290 , 72 L.Ed. 500 . The call of the subpoena for “all records, correspondence and memoranda” of the Civil Rights Congress relating to the three specified subjects describes them “with all the particularity the nature of the inquiry and the [Subcommittee’s] situation would permit,” Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, supra, 327 U.S. 186 at page 210, n. 48, 66 S.Ct. 494 at page 506, 90 L.Ed. 614 . “[T]he description contained in the subpoena was sufficient to enable [petitioner] to know what particular documents were required and to select them accordingly,” Brown v. United States, supra, 276 U.S. at page 143 , 48 S.Ct. at page 290 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 381 F. Supp. 1295 - In Re Grand Jury Invest.,(local 542-Int. U. of Op. Eng.) · In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon Horowitz

2. “all records, correspondence and memoranda pertaining to the organization of, * * *.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Giordano · In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon Horowitz

3. “The Government's proof at the trial thus established a prima facie case of willful failure to comply with the subpoena. The evidence of the Subcommittee's reasonable basis for believing that the petitioner could produce the records in question, coupled with the evidence of his failure even to suggest to the Subcommittee his inability to produce those records, clearly supported an inference that he could have produced them. The burden then shifted to the petitioner to present some evidence to explain or justify his refusal. Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82 , 88-89, 54 S.Ct. 281, 284, 78 L.Ed. 664. But he elected not to present any evidence. In these circumstances, there was no factual issue, respecting the existence of the records or his ability to produce them, for resolution by the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Rizzo