United States v. Doe’s Empirical Analysis
63 F.3d 121 · 1995
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 8 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Huminski v. Corsones (2004), In Re Orange (2005)
29 federal appellate · 8 district · 8 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 Soberon v. United States · Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia · Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart · Waller v. Georgia · Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California Riverside County
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a substantial probability of prejudice to a compelling interest of the defendant, government, or third party, which closure would prevent,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the district court must determine, in specific findings made on the record, if there is a substantial probability of prejudice to a compelling interest of the defendant, government, or third party, which closure would prevent. Second, if a substantial probability of prejudice is found, the district court must consider whether reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the compelling interest that would be prejudiced by public access. Third, if such alternatives are found wanting, the district court should determine whether, under the circumstances of the case, the prejudice to the compelling interest override[s] the qualified First Amendment right of access. Fourth, if the court finds that closure is warranted, it should devise a closure order that, while not necessarily the least restrictive means available to protect the endangered interest, is narrowly tailored to that purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Doe
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.