United States v. Stevens’s Empirical Analysis
510 F.2d 1101 · 1975
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably United States v. Chanen (1977), In Re Matter of Seymour A. Gopman. United States of America v. Seymour A. Gopman (1976)
47 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
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. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3504 · 18 U.S.C. § 6002 · 28 U.S.C. § 1826
Relies on Gelbard v. United States · Levine v. United States · Brown v. United States · Grand Jury Proceedings of Beverly v. United States · United States v. See
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While we think this, at least to federal authorities, is a salutary practice, and may be mandated in other contexts, see Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41 , 56 [ 92 S.Ct. 2357 , 33 L.Ed.2d 179 ] (1972), we also think that at this proceeding all that can be required is that those conducting the grand jury proceeding affirm that they have no knowledge of and have not in any way employed other taps in formulating lines of inquiry or questions to be posed to the witness.” [Emphasis supplied.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] grand jury is clothed with great independence in many areas, but it remains an appendage of the court, powerless to perform its investigative function without the court’s aid, because powerless itself to compel the testimony of witnesses. It is the court’s process which summons the witness to attend and give testimony, and it is the court which must compel a witness to testify if, after appearing, he refuses to do so.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“exercises its powers under the authority and supervision of the court”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Melvin · United States v. Holland
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.