United States v. Chun’s Empirical Analysis
503 F.2d 533 · 1974
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 5 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2012 · most notably United States v. Donovan (1977), Commonwealth v. Vitello (1975)
30 federal appellate · 5 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. § 1955 · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3504
Relies on Katz v. United States · Alderman v. United States · Nardone v. United States · Brown v. United States · Berger v. New York
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Within a reasonable time but not later than ninety days after the filing of an application for an order of approval under section 23-548 which is denied, or the termination of the period of any order or extensions thereof, the issuing or denying judge shall cause to be served, on the persons named in the order or the application, and such other parties to intercepted communications as the judge may determine, in his discretion, are necessary in the interest of justice, an inventory which shall include notice of— (1) the fact of the entry of the order or the application for an order of approval which was denied; (2) the date of the entry of the order or the denial of the application for an order of approval; (3) the period of authorized, approved, or disapproved interception; and (4) whether during the period wire or oral communications were intercepted. The judge, upon the filing of a motion, may in his discretion make available to the person or his counsel for inspection such portions of the intercepted communications, applications, and orders as the judge determines to be in the interest of justice. On an ex parte showing of good cause to a judge, the serving of the inventory required by this subsection may be postponed.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"As we analyze § 2518 (8) ( d ), the inventory notice provision is a central or at least a functional safeguard in the statutory scheme." (p. 542.)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a reasonable opportunity to prepare an adequate response to the evidence which has been derived from the interception.”
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.