United States v. Alter’s Empirical Analysis
482 F.2d 1016 · 1973
Citation profile
128 federal appellate · 7 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 196 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably United States v. Weiner (1978), United States v. McCord (1975)
128 federal appellate · 7 district · 12 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3504 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 6002 · 18 U.S.C. § 842
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Goldberg v. Kelly · Gault · Gagnon v. Scarpelli
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 196 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the specific facts which reasonably lead the affiant to believe that named counsel for the [defendant] has been subjected to electronic surveillance; (2) the dates of such suspected surveillance; (3) the outside dates of representation of the [defendant] by the lawyer during the period of surveillance; (4) the identity of the person(s) . . . with whom the lawyer . . . was communicating at the time the claimed surveillance took place; and (5) facts showing some connection between possible electronic surveillance and the [defendant] who asserts the claim or the [trial] in which the [defendant] is involved.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ . . . information whatever about the identity of the person or persons with whom he communicated, the substance of his inquiries, or the substance of the replies. He states no facts from which the court could conclude that the six agencies he lists are the only governmental agencies that could have been involved in electronic surveillance. Nor does the affidavit reveal the dates of claimed surveillance to which the inquiries were addressed.” Id., 482 F.2d at 1027 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(w)henever a witness in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury . . . refuses Without just cause shown to comply with an order of the court to testify”
3 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.