United States v. Handler’s Empirical Analysis
476 F.2d 709 · 1973
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 1999 · most notably In Re Martorano (1975), Raymond J. Ryan and Helen Ryan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1977)
20 federal appellate · 4 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. § 1955 · 18 U.S.C. § 2514 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 6002 · 28 U.S.C. § 1826
Relies on Shillitani v. United States · Gelbard v. United States · Bursey v. United States · Parker v. United States · United States v. Weinberg
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Whenever a witness in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States refuses without just cause shown to comply with an order of the court to testify or provide other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording or other material, the court, upon such refusal, or when such refusal is duly brought to its attention, may summarily order his confinement at a suitable place until such time as the witness is willing to give such testimony or provide such information. No period of such confinement shall exceed the life of— (1) the court proceeding, or (2) the term of the grand jury, including extensions, before which such refusal to comply with the court order occurred, but in no event shall such confinement exceed eighteen months.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Kilgo · In re Di Bella“In ruling as we do, we emphasize.. .the remedial nature of [contemnor’s] confinement. The importance of that fact is the recognition of [contemnor's] continuing right to petition to district court for release if it appears that he is no longer able to comply with the order to testify, or if the public necessity that led to the grant of immunity and the order to testify should cease to exist. (Citation omitted.) That is a matter within the province of the district court, not ours.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“only if after the date of the Order (appellant) refuses to testify . . . on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re John F Farrell
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.