United States v. Doe’s Empirical Analysis
451 F.2d 466 · 1971
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1990 · most notably Gelbard v. United States (1972), United States v. Toscanino (1974)
27 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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)
Relies on Jones v. United States · Alderman v. United States · Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States · Kolod v. United States · In re Grand Jury Proceedings
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““1. That he is a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Internal Security Division, Department of Justice; “2. That he caused an inquiry to be made with the appropriate Federal Government agencies to determine if there has been any electronic surveillance of the conversations of Zoia Horn or any electronic surveillance of conversations occurring on her premises, whether or not she was present or participated in those conversations; “3. That based upon the results of such inquiry he hereby states that there has been no electronic surveillance of any conversations of Zoia Horn and that there has been no electronic surveillance of any conversations occurring on her premises, s/ A. William Olson A. WILLIAM OLSON Deputy Assistant Attorney General “Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th date of January 1972.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““(a) Any aggrieved person in any trial, . . . in or before any court . may move to suppress tlie contents of any intercepted wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on tlie grounds that— (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.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“2. That he caused an inquiry to be made with the appropriate Federal Government agencies to determine if there has been any electronic surveillance of the conversations of Zoia Horn or any electronic surveillance of conversations occurring on her premises, whether or not she was present or participated in those conversations;”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.