Korman v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
486 F.2d 926 · 1973
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2012 · most notably United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977), United States v. Lawson (1974)
44 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3331 · 18 U.S.C. § 3332 · 18 U.S.C. § 3504 · 18 U.S.C. § 6002 · 28 U.S.C. § 1826 · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Sierra Club v. Morton · Bolling v. Sharpe · Alderman v. United States · Kastigar v. United States · Silverthorne Lumber Co. 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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the clear intent of Congress would seem to be that the interception of wire communications would be governed solely by (18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The legislative history of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 indicates that the Special Grand Jury was created as an instrument to investigate organized crime in areas where such criminal activity was evident. It would thwart the purpose of the Act to limit to two the number of Special Grand Juries in a district when in fact four or five were necessary for adequate investigation of organized crime. Korman v. United States, 486 F.2d 926 , 934 (7th Cir. 1973) (footnote omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under 18 U.S.C. § 3331 (a) the term of a Special Grand Jury may be extended either at the instigation of the jury members themselves by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members whereupon application for extension is made to the Chief Judge of the district for continuance, or, if in the opinion of the District Court the business has not been completed, that Court may order a six-month extension.”
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.