United States v. Aref’s Empirical Analysis
533 F.3d 72 · 2008
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. El-Mezain (2011), United States v. Moussaoui (2010)
16 federal appellate · 4 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Roviaro v. United States · United States v. Hasting · United States v. Reynolds · Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California for County of Riverside
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court, upon a sufficient showing, may authorize the United States to delete specified items of classified information from documents to be made available to the defendant through discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to substitute a summary of the information for such classified documents, or to substitute a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove. The court may permit the United States to make a request for such authorization in the form of a written statement to be inspected by the court alone. If the court enters an order granting relief following such an ex parte showing, the entire text of the statement of the United States shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he district court must first decide whether the classified information the [government possesses is discoverable. If it is, the district court must then determine whether the state-secrets privilege applies because ... there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged .... If the evidence is discoverable but the information is privileged, the court must next decide whether the information is helpful or material to the defense, i.e., useful to counter the government’s case or to bolster a defense....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“public perception of the judiciary's legitimacy and independence”
2 later decisions 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.