Cali v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
464 F.2d 475 · 1972
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 1826
Relies on Gelbard v. United States · United States v. Blue · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · In re Grand Jury Proceedings · United States v. Violations of 18 U.S.C. Sections 231, 241, 245, 371, 1361, 2101, 2102
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.
““Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States, a State or a political subdivision thereof, may move to suppress the contents of any intercepted wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom.....””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This result strikes a balance between the requirements of the federal wiretap statute and the efficient functioning of the grand jury. It allows the grand jury to proceed, uninterrupted by lengthy suppression hearings unless and until the power to compel testimony is invoked. The aggrieved grand jury witness is not left without remedies for the unlawful interception. While remedies other than suppression may be less efficacious in protecting individual rights, it must be remembered that the Omnibus Act provides greater protection than previously existed.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Because no person is a party as such to a grand jury proceeding, the provision does not envision the mak ing of a motion to suppress in the context of such a proceeding itself It is the intent of the provision only that when a motion to suppress is granted in another context, its scope may include use in a future grand jury proceeding.””
1 later decision 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.