Boehner v. McDermott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “441 F.3d at 1015. The asserted distinguishing of this case occurred in a footnote stating as follows: 55 In the Boehner case, as in this suit, a conversation over a car cell phone was intercepted, but in that case the defendant knew both who was responsible for intercepting the conversation and how they had done it. In the opinion of the majority [of the D.C. Circuit], the defendant acted unlawfully in accepting the tape in order to provide it to the media. 56 532 U.S. at 522 n. 5, 121 S.Ct. 1753 (quoted at 441 F.3d at 1014) (internal citations omitted). The panel majority hastened to say”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Boehner v. McDermott

2. “). Appellee brought the present action, which the district court dismissed, reasoning this application of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c) violated the First Amendment guarantee to the right of free speech. The defendant appealed. In a split decision, a panel of this court reversed the dismissal, holding that the application of section 2511(1)(c) and a parallel Florida statute”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Boehner v. McDermott

3. “was of constitutional significance, one must wonder why it thought the different results in the two circuit cases constituted a disagreement. This wonderment must be greatly enhanced upon reading the next sentence, which states,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Boehner v. McDermott