Farr v. Pitchess’s Empirical Analysis
522 F.2d 464 · 1975
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably United States v. Cuthbertson (1980), Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company (1978)
23 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 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 Sheppard v. Maxwell · Branzburg v. Hayes · Near v. State of Minnesota Olson · Carey v. Hume · Garland v. Torre
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he precise holding of Branzburg [had] subordinated the right of the newsmen to keep secret a source of information in [the] face of the more compelling requirement that a grand jury be able to secure factual data relating to its investigation of serious criminal conduct.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he First Amendment protections announced by Branzburg collided head-on with a compelling judicial interest in disclosure of the identity of those persons frustrating a duly entered order of the court... The courts must take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their processes from prejudicial outside interferences.... [T]he purpose of eliminating collaboration between counsel and the press is to protect the constitutionally guaranteed right of the defendants in criminal cases to due process by means of a fair trial. That constitutional right cannot be so protected if the authority of the court to enforce its orders is diluted. If the newsman's privilege against disclosure of news sources is to serve as a bar to disclosure of the names of those who disobey the court order, then the court is powerless to enforce this method of eliminating encroachment on the due-process right of the defendants.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Matter of Decker“In a criminal ease the trial judge has a duty and obligation to attempt to protect the right of the defendants to a fair trial, free of adverse publicity. Where the case is a notorious one, that burden on the court is heavy. The most practical and recommended procedure to insure against dissemination of prejudicial information is the entry of an order directing that attorneys, court personnel, enforcement officers and witnesses refrain from releasing any information which might interfere with the right of the defendant to a fair trial.”
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.