Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 754 F.2d 395 - In re Sealed Case

In re Sealed Case’s Empirical Analysis

754 F.2d 395 · 1985

Citation profile

114
cited by 114 later decisions
7
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

56 federal appellate · 22 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably United States v. Laurins (1988), United States v. Ballard (1986)

56 federal appellate · 22 district · 11 state decisions

36019851990200020102020decided

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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 1505 · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 371

Relies on United States v. Nixon · National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. · United States v. Dionisio · Clark v. United States · Perlman 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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Communications otherwise protected by attorney-client privilege are not protected if the communications are made in furtherance of a crime, fraud, or other misconduct____ To overcome a claim of privilege, the government need not prove the existence of a crime or fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, the government must first make a prima facie showing of a violation sufficiently serious to defeat the privilege and second, establish some relationship between the communication at issue and the prima facie violation. A prima facie violation is shown if it is established that the client was engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent act when it sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme____ The government satisfies its burden of proof if it offers evidence that if believed by the trier of fact would establish the elements of an ongoing crime or fraud.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “offers evidence that if believed by the trier of fact would establish the elements of an ongoing or imminent crime or fraud.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Both require that a prudent person have a reasonable basis to suspect the perpetration of a crime or fraud.”
    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.