Grand Jury Proceedings of Beverly v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
468 F.2d 732 · 1972
Citation profile
98 federal appellate · 10 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 171 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably United States v. Toscanino (1974), In re Grand Jury Proceedings (1973)
98 federal appellate · 10 district · 13 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. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3504 · 18 U.S.C. § 6002 · 28 U.S.C. § 1826
Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Boyd v. United States · Alderman v. United States · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson · Kastigar 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 171 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“28 U.S.C. § 1826 (b), the statute which provides for expedited appeals from contempt orders aimed at recalcitrant witnesses such as Heller, also provides that release pending appeal is proper unless “it appears that the appeal is frivolous or taken for delay.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) A United States Attorney may, with the approval of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or any designated Assistant Attorney General, request an order under subsection (a) of this section when in his judgment (1) the testimony or other information from such individual may be necessary to the public interest; and (2) such individual has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or provide other information on the basis of privilege against self-incrimination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n order to be entitled to a stay pending appeal under Rule 62 F.R.Civ.P. or 8 F.R.A.P., a petitioner must show the likelihood of his prevailing on the merits on appeal, that he is likely to suffer irreparable injury from the denial of the stay, that the other parties will not be substantially harmed by the grant of stay, and that granting the stay will serve the public interest.”
2 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.