Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 548 F.2d 1302 - United States v. Graham

United States v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis

548 F.2d 1302 · 1977

Citation profile

134
cited by 134 later decisions
9
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

104 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably United States v. Thevis (1982), United States v. DeLuna (1985)

104 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions

66019771980199020002010decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · United States v. Nixon · Draper v. United States · United States v. Harris

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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'The power to apply for immunity ... is the sole prerogative of the government being confined to the United States Attorney and his superior officers.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[U]nsupported allegations of co-defendant misconduct and resultant prejudice are insufficient to justify a finding that the District Court abused its discretion in not granting their motions for severance.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Whether or not the patient, with respect to whom any given record referred to in subsection (a) of this section is maintained, gives written consent, the content of such record may be disclosed as follows: (A) To medical personnel to the extent necessary to meet a bona fide medical emergency. (B) To qualified personnel for the purpose of conducting scientific research management audits, financial audits, or program evaluation, but such personnel may not identify, directly or indirectly, any individual patient in any report of such research, audit, or evaluation, or otherwise disclose patient identities in any manner. (C) If authorized by an appropriate order of a court of competent jurisdiction granted after application showing good cause therefor, including the need to avert a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm. In assessing good cause the court shall weigh the public interest and the need for disclosure against the injury to the patient, to the physician-patient relationship, and to the treatment services. Upon the granting of such order, the court, in determining the extent to which any disclosure of all or any part of any record is necessary, shall impose appropriate safeguards against unauthorized disclosure.”
    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.