In Re Lionel Mintzer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “[w]hile we think this, at least as 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.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Stevens · In Re Alfred L. Hodges, Jr.

2. ““The district court had, in an effort to expedite matters, permitted the witness to seek government affirmance or denial of wiretapping, under 18 U.S.C. § 3504 , prior to his grand jury appearance. This was not required, because appellant was not yet an ‘aggrieved person’ as defined by the statute. Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41, 54 [ 92 S.Ct. 2357 , 33 L.Ed.2d 179 ] (1972); see In re Lochiatto, 497 F.2d 803, 806 (1st Cir. 1974). But the district judge reasoned that time would be saved by extending the privilege before the witness was brought before the grand jury.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re the Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon Archuleta