Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 656 F.2d 1313 - United States v. Rylander

United States v. Rylander’s Empirical Analysis

656 F.2d 1313 · 1981

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
June 2014
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2014 · most notably United States v. Rylander (1983), Donovan v. Mazzola (1983)

14 federal appellate · 2 district ·

2601981199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 7602 · 26 U.S.C. § 7604

Relies on Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · United States v. Powell · Maggio v. Zeitz · Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · Curcio 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “... although inability to comply with a judicial decree constitutes a defense to a charge of civil contempt, the federal rule is that one petitioning for an adjudication of civil contempt does not have the burden of showing that the respondent has the capacity to comply. The contrary burden is upon the respondent. To satisfy this burden the respondent must show “categorically and in detail” why he is unable to comply.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “remand for the district court to make a finding concerning the validity of Rylander's fifth amendment claim. If the court finds that Rylander's fifth amendment claim is valid, the government will have an opportunity to show that the summoned records are in Rylander's possession or under his control. The court should permit the government to introduce additional evidence in order to meet its burden. At this stage of the proceedings, . . . the government has not met its burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Rylander is in contempt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “When the defendant has made a bona fide fifth amendment claim, his statement that the documents are not in his possession or under his control is sufficient to satisfy his burden of production. The burden then shifts to the government to produce evidence showing that the documents in question actually exist and are in the defendant's possession or under his control.”
    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.