Suarez v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
582 F.2d 1007 · 1978
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently January 2006 · most notably Weimerskirch v. Commissioner (1979), United States v. Varella (1982)
29 federal appellate · 1 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. § 4401
Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Roviaro v. United States · United States v. Janis · Hill v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 25 · Padilla-Martinez 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At one extreme are those cases such as Roviaro itself, in which the informant played an active and crucial role in the events underlying a defendant’s or litigant’s potential criminal or civil liability. In these cases, disclosure and production of the informant is in all likelihood required to ensure a fair trial. At another extreme are those cases in which the informant was not an active participant, but rather a mere tipster. In those cases, disclosure of the informant’s identity is not required by Roviaro . A third group of cases falls in between these two extremes. In these cases, there is a distinct possibility that the defendant might benefit from disclosure, but the Government claims a compelling need to protect its informant.”
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.