United States v. Stringer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate ·

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

1. “Accepting the district court’s factual findings under the clear error standard, we hold that the government’s conduct does not amount to a constitutional violation under either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. We vacate the dismissal of the indictments because in a standard form it sent to the defendants, the government fully disclosed the possibility that information received in the course of the civil investigation could be used for criminal proceedings. There was no deceit; rather, at most, there was a government decision not to conduct the criminal investigation openly, a decision we hold the government was free to make. There is nothing improper about the government undertaking simultaneous criminal and civil investigations, and nothing in the government’s actual conduct of those investigations amounted to deceit or an affirmative misrepresentation justifying the rare sanction of dismissal of criminal charges or suppression of evidence received in the course of the investigations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Stringer

2. “MR. MARTSON: My first question is whether Mr. Stringer is a target of any aspect of the investigation being conducted by the SEC. STAFF ATTORNEY: The SEC does not have targets in this investigation. MR. MARTSON: The other questions I have relate to whether or not, in connection with your investigation, the SEC is working in conjunction with any other department of the United States, such as the U.S. Attorney’s Office in any jurisdiction, or the Department of Justice. STAFF ATTORNEY: As laid out in the 1662 form, in the “routine use of’ section there are routine uses of our investigation, and it is the agency’s policy not to respond to questions like that, but instead, to direct you to the other agencies you mentioned. MR. MARTSON: And which U.S. Attorney’s Office might I inquire into? STAFF ATTORNEY: That would be a matter up to your discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Stringer

3. “Karin J. Immergut, United States Attorney; Hannah Horsley, Assistant United States Attorney; and Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant United States Attorney, Portland, Oregon, for plaintiff-appellant United States of America. Janet Lee Hoffman, Hoffman Angeli LLP, Portland, Oregon, for defendant-appellee J. Kenneth Stringer, III. Ronald H. Hoevet, Hoevet, Boise & Olson, P.C., Portland, Oregon, for defendant-appellee Mark Samper. John S. Ransom and Kendra Matthews, Ransom Blackman LLP, Portland, Oregon, for defendant-appellee William Martin.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Stringer