Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 410 F.2d 536 - United States v. Covello

United States v. Covello’s Empirical Analysis

410 F.2d 536 · 1969

Citation profile

137
cited by 137 later decisions
14
states following
January 2007
most recently cited

88 federal appellate · 3 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently January 2007 · most notably United States v. Barnard (1973), United States v. Fatico (1979)

88 federal appellate · 3 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 14 states

90019691970198019902000decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1084 · 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 1732 · 47 U.S.C. § 605

Relies on Alderman v. United States · Costello v. United States · Jencks v. United States · Desist v. United States · Cree v. Goldstein

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

  1. “(T)he keeping of toll records is a necessary part of the ordinary course of the telephone company's business and is necessary in order that the company may substantiate its charges to its customers. Toll records are kept for all telephone subscribers and are not kept just for subscribers being investigated by officers of the law, or ones suspected of criminal proclivities. The subscriber is fully aware that such records will be made . . . and the records of the telephone company so kept in the ordinary course of the company's business are entitled to the same evidentiary treatment as the records of other businesses.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In all probability Congress did not consider the question whether a suppression hearing is itself a ‘trial’ or whether such a hearing is so much an integral part of the criminal trial that determines a defendant’s innocence or guilt so as to intend either that the Act apply to such a hearing or that it not do so.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The admissibility of secondary evidence is within the broad discretion of the trial judge.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.