Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 685 FSUPP 486 - Piechowicz v. United States

Piechowicz v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
August 2013
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 2013

3 federal appellate · 5 district ·

501988199020002010decided

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. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 3481 · 18 U.S.C. § 3521 (Witness Security Reform Act of 1984) · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Paul v. Davis · Pierson v. Ray · Dalehite 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Anthony Grandison was charged with violations of federal drug and firearms laws in an indictment filed in [the United States District Court for the District of Maryland] on November 17, 1982. Assistant United States Attorney Savage and Special Agent Ryan [of the Drug Enforcement Administration] were in charge of the prosecution of the case. David Scott Piechowicz (David) and Cheryl Ann Piechowicz (Cheryl), husband and wife [ ], were subpoenaed by the government to testify in that case against Grandison during a pretrial hearing on March 14, 1983 as well as at the trial on May 3, 1983. Plaintiffs allege that both David and Cheryl were threatened by an agent of Grandison on March 14, 1983, before the hearing on that date; that David and Cheryl immediately reported those threats to Savage and Ryan; and that David and Cheryl were told by Savage and Ryan not to worry about the threats and to testify truthfully and honestly when called to testify at the March 14, 1983 hearing. During the hearing, both David and Cheryl testified against Grandison, disclosing during their testimony that they were both then working at the Warren House Hotel in Baltimore County, Maryland. Plaintiffs also assert that Cheryl and David repeated their concerns about the threats to Savage and Ryan on several occasions after the March 14th hearing, but that no action by anyone connected with the government was taken to protect David or Cheryl with respect to any danger in connection with their testifying aga”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”); see also Pair v. United States, 234 F.2d 288 , 294-95 (5th Cir.1956) (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[a] ... witness should routinely receive information on steps that law enforcement officers and attorneys for the Government can take to protect victims and witnesses from intimidation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.