United States v. Sindel’s Empirical Analysis
53 F.3d 874 · 1995
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum (1997), United States v. Gertner (1995)
11 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6050I
Relies on West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette · Fisher v. United States · Wooley v. Maynard · Couch v. United States · Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First Amendment protection against compelled speech ... has been found only in the context of governmental compulsion to disseminate a particular political or ideological message.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Amawi v. Pflugerville Indep. Sch. Dist. · C.N., Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem of J.N., a Minor L.M., Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem of V.M., a Minor M.E., Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem of J.E., a Minor v. Ridgewood Board of Education Frederick J. Stokley Joyce Snider Ronald Verdicchio Robert Weakley John Mucciolo Anthony Bencivenga Sheila Brogan“Congress cannot have intended to allow local rules of professional ethics to carve out fifty different privileged exemptions to the reporting requirements of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6050I.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“only to provide the government with information which his clients have given him voluntarily, not to disseminate publicly a message with which he disagrees”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. C.N., Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem of J.N., a Minor L.M., Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem of V.M., a Minor M.E., Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem of J.E., a Minor v. Ridgewood Board of Education Frederick J. Stokley Joyce Snider Ronald Verdicchio Robert Weakley John Mucciolo Anthony Bencivenga Sheila Brogan · Cn Jn Lm Vm Me Je v. Ridgewood Board of Education
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.