United States v. Kahn’s Empirical Analysis
471 F.2d 191 · 1972
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2014 · most notably United States v. Kahn (1974), United States v. Ammar (1983)
46 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 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. § 2517 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Boyd v. United States · Alderman v. United States · Hoffa v. United States · Berger v. New York · Hawkins 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 68 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, 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. Such motion shall be made before the trial, hearing, or proceeding unless there was no opportunity to make such motion or the person was not aware of the grounds of the motion. If the motion is granted, the contents of the intercepted wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, shall be treated as having been obtained in violation of this chapter.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Society has an interest in protecting the privacy of marriage because invasion of the privacy endangers the family relationship,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(1) Each application for an order . shall include the following information: “(a) the identity of the investigative or law enforcement officer making the application and the officer authorizing the application; “(b) a full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant, to justify his belief that an order should be issued, including . . . (iv) the identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted; “(4) Each order authorizing or approving the interception of any wire or oral communication shall specify— “(a) the identity of the person, if known, whose communications are to be intercepted . .”
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.