Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 505 FSUPP2D 33 - Hatfill v. Gonzales

Hatfill v. Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
March 2011
most recently cited

3 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 5 U.S.C. § 552A (§ 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974)

Relies on United States v. Nixon · Elkins v. United States · Branzburg v. Hayes · Trammel v. United States · United States v. Bryan

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

  1. “The Supreme Court has noted in the context of privilege in grand jury cases that it “cannot seriously entertain the notion that the First Amendment protects a newsman’s agreement to conceal the criminal conduct of his source, or evidence thereof, on the theory that it is better to write about crime than to do something about it.” Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 692, 92 S.Ct. 2646 , quoted in In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 397 F.3d 964, 970 (D.C.Cir.2005). The same principle applies here; the protections of the Privacy Act do not disappear when the illegally disclosed information is leaked to a journalist, no matter how newsworthy the government official may feel the information is.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(4) the term “record” means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, ... and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph;”
    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.