Ex parte Sackett’s Empirical Analysis
74 F.2d 922 · 1935
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently October 1998 · most notably United States Touhy v. Ragen (1951), 60 Cal. 2d 378 - People v. Parham (1963)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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
Relies on Caha v. United States · Boske v. Comingore · Crawford v. Hubbell · Footville Condensed Milk Co. v. Warner
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whenever such subpoenas shall have been served upon them, they will appear in court in answer thereto and respectfully decline to produce the records called for, on the ground of being prohibited therefrom by the regulations of this department. * * * In all cases where copies of documents or records are desired by or on behalf of parties to a suit, whether in a court of the United States or any other, such copies shall be furnished to the court only and on a rule of the court upon the Secretary of the Treasury requesting the same. Whenever such rule of the court shall have been obtained collectors are directed to carefully prepare a copy of the record or document containing the information called for and send it to this office, whereupon it will be transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury with a request for its authentication, under the seal of the department, and transmission to the judge of the court calling for it, unless it should be found that circumstances or conditions exist which makes it necessary to decline, in the interest of the public service, to furnish such a copy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When one considers the variety of information contained in the files of any government department and the possibilities of harm from unrestricted disclosure in court, the usefulness, indeed the necessity, of centralizing determination as to whether subpoenas duces tecum will be willingly obeyed or challenged is obvious. Hence, it was appropriate for the Attorney General, pursuant to the authority given him by * * U.S.C.A. § 22, to prescribe regulations not inconsistent with law for `the custody, use, and preservation of the records, papers, and property appertaining to' the Department of Justice, to promulgate Order 3229.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“may take from a subordinate ... all discretion as to permitting the records in his custody to be used for any other purpose than the collection of revenue, and reserve for his own determination all matters of that character.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gomez v. Gates
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.