In re Grand Jury Proceedings’s Empirical Analysis
450 F.2d 199 · 1971
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2015 · most notably Gelbard v. United States (1972), United States v. Kenny (1972)
64 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
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. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2514 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 3504 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Brady v. State of Maryland · Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Younger v. Harris
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]henever 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 . . . proceeding in or before any . . . grand jury, . . . if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) the communication was unlawfully intercepted; (ii) the order of authorization or approval under which it was intercepted is insufficient on its face; or (iii) the interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization or approval.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . . it has been recognized for at least three centuries that the public has the right to every person's testimony. Every witness privilege is seriously in derogation of a general and fundamental duty.”
3 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.