Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 494 F.2d 593 - United States v. John William Butenko and Igor A. Ivanov. Appeal of Igor A. Ivanov

United States v. John William Butenko and Igor A. Ivanov. Appeal of Igor A. Ivanov’s Empirical Analysis

494 F.2d 593 · 1974

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
May 2025
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Barker (1975), Zweibon v. Mitchell (1975)

39 federal appellate · 5 district ·

310197419801990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Carroll v. United States · Brinegar 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “broadcasting ... for the use of the general public”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “'were conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information.’ ” 494 F.2d at 601 . 9 . 50 U.S.C. § 1802 (b) provides, in relevant part:”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The Supreme Court has not yet decided what procedure the district courts are to follow in making threshold determinations concerning the lawfulness of electronic surveillance. . .. The Court has suggested, however, that adversary proceedings and full disclosure are not necessarily required ‘for resolution of every issue raised by an electronic surveillance.’ To the contrary, such protections will not be required when the task is such that in camera procedures will adequately safeguard the defendants’ fourth amendment rights.””
    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.