Shoen v. Shoen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 12 district · 16 state decisions

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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Rooted in the First Amendment, the privilege is a recognition that society's interest in protecting the integrity of the newsgathering process, and in ensuring the free flow of information to the public, is an interest 'of sufficient social importance to justify some incidental sacrifice of sources of facts needed in the administration of justice.'”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Neal v. City of Harvey · Mark v. Shoen Edward J. Shoen v. Leonard Samuel Shoen Christina G. Shoen, Ronald J. Watkins, Witness-Appellant

2. “[t]he threat of administrative and judicial intrusion into the newsgathering and editorial process; the disadvantage of a journalist appearing to be an investigative arm of the judicial system or a research tool of government or of a private party; the disincentive to compile and preserve non-broadcast material; and the burden on journalists' time and resources in responding to subpoenas.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Shoen v. Shoen · 196 Wis. 2d 182 - Kurzynski v. Spaeth

3. “the lack of a confidential source may be an important element in balancing the ... need for the material sought against the interest of the journalist in preventing production in a particular case.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Mark v. Shoen Edward J. Shoen v. Leonard Samuel Shoen Christina G. Shoen, Ronald J. Watkins, Witness-Appellant · Spooner v. Town of Topsham