United States v. Projansky’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “some particularized and substantial reasons”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Doe v. United States · In re Sealed Motion

2. “But the point, with deference to the authority of those it has impressed, seems unsubstantial. The old Rule also said `may,' and then went on to require a `showing' by the defendant (a pattern retained in present subsection (b)). When the latter aspect was excised, it strains words unbearably to say the meaning is unchanged because the former was retained. And the retention of `may' makes perfect sense without any such torture. Discovery under 16(a) is not routine and inescapable. The Rule elsewhere, see subsection (e), reminds us of a potential need for exceptions, protective orders, and the exercise of judgment. All this is taken into account, and the measure of judicial discretion amply respected, if we acknowledge that the Government may show particularized justifications for withholding what is otherwise to be given under Rule 16 (a). But it is wholly different, and wholly unsupportable, to say the Government may sit back, invoke the old generalities, and conceal from the defendant his own damaging statements and testimony unless the defendant shows some kind of `particularized need' almost never identified by the prosecution because it is almost never possible to imagine, let alone supply.”

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

3. “It would be difficult to discover more cogent evidence that the erasure of any such requirements for the things now covered by 16(a) was a deliberate, carefully tailored and substantially meaningful change. * * * What has been reviewed seems sufficient for the conclusion that when he demands `good cause' or `particularized need' or the like under Rule 16(a), the prosecutor seeks to read back in restrictions which were purposely and studiedly eliminated.”

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