United States v. Hemphill’s Empirical Analysis
369 F.2d 539 · 1966
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably Von Bulow ex rel. Auersperg v. Von Bulow (1987), Does Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corporation (2000)
31 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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
Relies on Schlagenhauf v. Holder · International Products Corp. v. Koons · Bartley Pen Co. v. United States District Court for the Southern District of California · W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Continental Finance & Loan Co. Of West End · Bank Line, Ltd. 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To compel the Secretary of Labor to appear in the District Court in response to the order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt[for refusing to answer interrogatories] would not provide an adequate legal remedy”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“conclusion simplifies the question of the appropriateness of the remedy sought by the petitioner[ ],”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[T]he policy favoring anonymity of informants must give way when it conflicts with the countervailing policy favoring fair and orderly trials and pretrial procedures. “This was the concern of the District Judge. We share his conviction that when the United States, a cabinet official, or an agency of the United States comes into the Court as a plaintiff, they are subject to the same rules as private litigants, and the open disclosure which is now demanded of litigants in the federal courts, because of its fairness and its contribution to accuracy in the factfind-ing process, is equally demanded of such plaintiffs.””
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.