Kinoy v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably Daniel Ellsberg, v John N. Mitchell (1983), Halkin v. Helms (1982)
9 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 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 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 47 U.S.C. § 605 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Roviaro v. United States · United States v. Nixon · Alderman 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or provided by Act of Congress or in rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our system of justice does not encompass ex parte determinations on the merits of cases in civil litigation. [If] the documents are privileged, [then] the litigation must continue as best it can without them....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must set forth, with enough particularity for the court to make an informed decision, the nature of the material withheld and of the threat to the national security should it be revealed.”
2 later decisions 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.