United States v. Eastman’s Empirical Analysis
465 F.2d 1057 · 1972
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently June 2007 · most notably United States v. Vento (1976), United States v. Cafero (1973)
22 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (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) · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 21 U.S.C. § 331 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Berger v. New York · Gelbard v. United States · Alcorta v. Texas · McGuire v. United States
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he touchstone of our decision on this aspect of the case at bar is not one in which an inventory was delayed but rather is one in which specific provisions of Title III were deliberately and advertently not followed.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We cannot agree with the Government’s position for two reasons: “(1) 18 U. S. C. Sec. 2518 (10) (a) states inter alia, ‘Any aggrieved person in any trial . . . may move to suppress the contents of any intercepted wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on the 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.’ (Emphasis added). As is pointed out in the admirable opinion of Judge Becker in United States v. Narducci in a closely analogous situation, an exclusionary rule has been written into the Act by Sec. 2515, which states, inter alia: ‘Whenever 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 trial. . . . before any court ... if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.’ (Emphasis added). That Section 2515 is exclusionary is now settled beyond all doubt in Gelbard v. United States, and United States v. Egan, 408 U. S. 41 , 92 S. Ct. 2357 , 33 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1972).” (p. 1061.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(d) Within a reasonable time but not later than ninety days after the filing of an application for an order of approval under section 2518(7) (b) which is denied or the termination of the period of an order or extensions thereof, the issuing or denying judge shall cause to be served, on the persons named in the order or the application, and such other parties to intercepted communications as the judge may determine in his discretion that is in the interest of justice, an inventory which shall include notice of — (1) the fact of the entry of the order or the application ; (2) the date of the entry and the period of authorized, approved or disapproved interception, or the denial of the application; and (3) the fact that during the period wire or oral communications were or were not intercepted. ...” (Emphasis added).”
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.