United States v. Brodson’s Empirical Analysis
528 F.2d 214 · 1975
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably United States v. Williams (1984), United States v. Vento (1976)
36 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 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 Furman v. Georgia · Gelbard v. United States · United States v. Tane · Jones v. United States · United States v. Thompson
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Government says that it was not obliged to make the application under Section 2517(5) because the evidence secured under the Section 1955 order and authorization and used in that prosecution applied equally as well to the Section 1084 prosecution. This is of no consequence here because the two offenses are wholly separate and distinct; they involve dissimilar elements and require different evidence, even though some of it might overlap because both concern illegal gambling. The controlling factor here, however, is not the dissimilarity of the offenses, but the fact that the Government itself has violated the key provision of the legislative scheme of Section 2515, in that it did not comply with the mandate of Section 2517(5).” (Emphasis supplied.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Here, the Government’s claim, that the authorizations applicable to the Section 1955 violations were also relevant to Section 1084 violations, should have been tested by submitting them to a judge in aceor- dance with the rationale of Section 2517(5). This the Government failed to do within the time requirement of ‘as soon as practicable’ that the Section specifies. Moreover, without submitting to the requirements of Section 2517(5), the Government disclosed the intercepted conversations to the Grand Jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“By inserting Section 2517(5) into the Act, the Congress obviously intended to require that the Government submit the tape of its wiretaps to a neutral judge so that he might determine whether the interceptions were the inadvertent product of a legitimately obtained wiretap or the electronic equivalent of the type of illegal evidence formerly obtained under the supposed authorization of a “general search warrant.””
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.