Zweibon v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
516 F.2d 594 · 1975
Citation profile
101 federal appellate · 27 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 224 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Goland v. Central Intelligence Agency (1978), Barrett v. Zweibon (1976)
101 federal appellate · 27 district · 4 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
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Carroll v. United States
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 224 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“instruments of the foreign policy of a foreign power”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nothing contained in this chapter (Title III) or in section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934 * * * shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities. Nor shall anything contained in this chapter be deemed to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government. The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted by authority of the President in the exercise of the foregoing powers may be received in evidence in any trial hearing, or other proceeding only where such interception was reasonable, and shall not be otherwise used or disclosed except as is necessary to implement that power.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“is intended to prevent rummaging searches. But as the above quotation from Coolidge clearly indicates, when looked at in context the reach of the Fourth Amendment is considerably broader. It is the individual's interest in privacy which the Amendment protects, and that would not appear to fluctuate with the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.