Galella v. Onassis’s Empirical Analysis
487 F.2d 986 · 1973
Citation profile
90 federal appellate · 19 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 264 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Mars Steel Corp. v. Continental Bank N.A. (1989), Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc. (1982)
90 federal appellate · 19 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 20 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. § 3056 (Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 144 · 28 U.S.C. § 1442 · 28 U.S.C. § 1920
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Katz v. United States · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Pierson v. Ray · Branzburg v. Hayes
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 264 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Galella does not seriously dispute the court’s finding of tortious conduct. Rather he sets up the First Amendment as a wall of immunity protecting newsmen from any liability for their conduct while gathering news. There is no such scope to the First Amendment right. Crimes and torts committed in news gathering are not protected. See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 , 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972); Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29 , 91 S.Ct. 1811 , 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971); Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245, 249-250 (9th Cir. 1971). See Restatement of Torts 2d § 652(f), comment k (Tent. Draft No. 13, 1967). There is no threat to a free press in requiring its agents to act within the law.” 487 F.2d at 995-996 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Circumstances of a deposition may be governed by the court’s protective order. The court may order that “discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(C). The extent of the court’s authority to determine those present was enlarged by the 1970 revision of the Rules of Discovery. Prior to the revision, Rule 30(b) allowed the court to order discovery to be conducted “with no one present except the parties to the action and their officers or counsel____” In view of the revision, it is clear that the court has the power to exclude even a party, although such an exclusion should be ordered rarely indeed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f we were required to reach the question, we would be inclined to agree . that when again faced with the issue the Court of Appeals may well modify or distinguish its 1902 holding [in Roberson ] . . There is substantive support today for the proposition that privacy is a “basic right” entitled to legal protection . . Privacy essential to individual dignity and personal liberty underlies the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.