Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 642 F.2d 1248 - Chagnon v. Bell

Chagnon v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis

642 F.2d 1248 · 1980

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Gray III v. Bell (1983), Daniel Ellsberg, v John N. Mitchell (1983)

13 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

2401980199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 292 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 47 U.S.C. § 605

Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Katz v. United States · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Butz v. Economou

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

  1. “declined to delineate 'precise standards for domestic security warrants'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Many of the nonpertinent calls may have been very short. Others may have been one-time only calls. Still other calls may have been ambiguous in nature or apparently involved guarded or coded language. In all these circumstances agents can hardly be expected to know that the calls are not pertinent prior to their termination.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government.”
    1 later decision 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.