United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 15 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably 194 W. Va. 431 - State Ex Rel. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Canady (1995), 194 W. Va. 788 - Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. McGraw (1995)
6 federal appellate · 15 district · 12 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 Upjohn Company v. United States · Cobbledick v. United States · Trammel v. United States · Foti v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Abel 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The details underlying the published data are the communications relating the data, the document, if any, to be published containing the data, all preliminary drafts of the document, and any attorne/s notes containing material necessary to the preparation of the [communication]. Copies of other documents, the contents of which were necessary to the preparation of the [communication], will also lose the privilege.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e must look to the services which the attorney has been employed to provide and determine if those services would reasonably be expected to entail the publication of the client's communications.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he “essence” of the privilege is the protection of what was “expressly made confidential” or should have been “reasonably assume[d] ... by the attorney as so intended.” In determining whether it was to be reasonably “assume[d] that confidentiality was intended,” it is the unquestioned rule that the mere relationship of attorney-client does not warrant a presumption of confidentiality.”
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.