Halkin v. Helms’s Empirical Analysis
690 F.2d 977 · 1982
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 16 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Hohri v. United States (1986), Afshar v. Department of State (1983)
44 federal appellate · 16 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 294 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 50 U.S.C. § 1801 (§ 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) · 50 U.S.C. § 403 (§ 102 of the National Security Act of 1947) · 50 U.S.C. § 421 (§ 601 of the National Security Act of 1947) · 50 U.S.C. § 422 (§ 602 of the National Security Act of 1947)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Warth v. Seldin · Baker v. Carr · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“even the most compelling necessity cannot overcome the privilege if the court is ultimately satisfied that military secrets are at stake”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he critical feature of the inquiry in evaluating the claim of privilege is not a balancing of ultimate interests at stake in the litigation. That balance has already been struck.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[SJecrets of state — matters the revelation of which reasonably could be seen as a threat to the military or diplomatic interests of the nation — are absolutely privileged from disclosure in the courts.”). 9 . See Declaration of Stephen Macpherson Watt in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to the United States’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (”
3 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.