Gelbard v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
636 federal appellate · 90 district · 153 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,303 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably United States v. Calandra (1974), Rose v. Mitchell (1979)
636 federal appellate · 90 district · 153 state decisions — followed in 21 states
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. Gelbard (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Mapp v. Ohio · Monroe v. Pape
Cited together with United States v. Calandra · Katz v. United States · Alderman v. United States · United States v. Giordano · Berger v. New York
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 1,303 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any ... grand jury, ... upon a claim by a party aggrieved that evidence is inadmissible because it is the primary product of an unlawful act or because it was obtained by exploitation of an unlawful act, the opponent of the claim shall affirm or deny the occurrence of the alleged unlawful act.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Persico · In re Marcus“the protection of privacy was an overriding congressional concern”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fultz v. Gilliam · Marsh v. Curran
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.