United States v. Black’s Empirical Analysis
776 F.2d 1321 · 1985
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably Olle v. Henry & Wright Corp. (1990), United States v. Paxson (1988)
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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. § 6002
Relies on Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Castor v. United States · United States v. Bryan · New Motor Vehicle Board of California v. Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corp. · Gray 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“18 U.S.C. § 6002 [] specifically exempts from the grant of immunity a prosecution “for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.” ... Though the statute does not include prosecutions for obstructions of justice among its exceptions, we agree with the court in United States v. Caron, 551 F.Supp. 662 (E.D.Va.1982), aff'd mem., 722 F.2d 739 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1103 , 104 S.Ct. 1602 , 80 L.Ed.2d 132 (1984), ... that § 6002 does not proscribe the use of immunized testimony in a prosecution for obstruction of justice .... [A] grant of immunity relates to the past, not to future conduct, and the obstruction of justice must have occurred after immunity had been granted.... [T]he exceptions in § 6002 are broad enough to permit the use of immunized testimony against one who has allegedly committed perjury or otherwise subverted the functioning of a tribunal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“on the ground that he had failed to comply with all of his obligations under the immunity agreement, the district court must consider carefully whether the provisions permitting prosecution in the event of a breach ... is [sic] enforceable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he legislative history of Sec. 6002 shows that Congress intended the perjury and false-declarations exception to be interpreted as broadly as constitutionally permissible.”
1 later decision 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.