United States v. Gigante’s Empirical Analysis
538 F.2d 502 · 1976
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2014 · most notably United States v. Ojeda Rios (1990), United States v. Fury (1977)
45 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 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 18 U.S.C. § 1955 · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Olmstead v. United States · United States v. Giordano · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Lascaris v. Shirley · New York v. Penn Central Transportation Co.
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(3) Any person who has received, by any means authorized by this chapter, any information concerning a wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter may disclose the contents of that communication or such derivative evidence while giving testimony under oath or affirmation in any proceeding held under the authority of the United States or of any State or political subdivision thereof. 2”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“Congress, in enacting Title Ill’s sharply detailed restrictions on electronic surveillance, intended to “ensure careful judicial scrutiny throughout” the process of intercepting and utilization of such evidence. The immediate sealing and storage of recordings of intercepted conversations, under the supervision of a judge, is an integral part of this statutory scheme. Section 2518(8)(a) was intended, to “insure that accurate records will be kept of intercepted communications”. Clearly all of the carefully planned strictures on the conduct of electronic surveillance . . . would be unavailing if no reliable records existed of the conversations which were, in fact, overheard.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the Government seeks an extension of the wiretap order as a ground for deferring the requirement of judicial sealing, it is incumbent upon it to do so ‘immediately’ or provide an explanation of its failure to do so. As contrary interpretation would fly in the face of the clear intent of § 2518(8)(a), by permitting the Government, whenever it fails to obtain immediate sealing orders, to avoid suppression by simply obtaining an extension of the initial wiretap authorization.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.