In re Sealed Case’s Empirical Analysis
676 F.2d 793 · 1982
Citation profile
126 federal appellate · 89 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 421 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Zolin (1989), State v. Post (1987)
126 federal appellate · 89 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 21 states
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 15 U.S.C. § 78D (§ 4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 31 U.S.C. § 5321
Relies on Hickman v. Taylor · Upjohn Company v. United States · Branzburg v. Hayes · United States v. Nobles · Chrysler Corporation v. Brown
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 421 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any disclosure inconsistent with maintaining the confidential nature of the attorney-client relationship waives the privilege.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'to all other communications relating to the same subject matter.'”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[i]n Hickman the Supreme Court read into the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure then in effect a two-tiered protection from discovery for attorney work product * * *. To the extent that work product contains relevant, nonprivileged facts, the Hickman doctrine merely shifts the standard presumption in favor of discovery and requires the party seeking discovery to show ‘adequate reasons’ why the work product should be subject to discovery. However, to the extent that work product reveals the opinions, judgments, and thought processes of counsel, it receives some higher level of protection, and a party seeking discovery must show extraordinary justification.””
6 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.