National Broadcasting Co. v. United States Department of Justice’s Empirical Analysis
735 F.2d 51 · 1984
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Newsday Inc Limited Unsealing of Affidavit Supporting Search Warrant Dated June Gardner v. Newsday Inc, United States v. Gerena (1989)
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2517 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Gelbard v. United States · Citizens & Southern National Bank v. United States · United States v. Dorfman · United States v. Florea
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 2515 Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications Whenever any wire or oral communications has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Any person who has received, by any means authorized by this chapter, any information concerning a wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter may disclose the contents of that communication of such derivative evidence while giving testimony under oath or affirmation in any proceeding held under the authority of the United States or of any State or political subdivision thereof.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'Aggrieved person' means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, electronic or oral communication or a person against whom the interception was directed.”
3 later decisions 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.