Klein 1983 Weston 1983 Mohney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Because of the potential effects upon an attorney-client relationship that may result from the issuance of a subpoena to an attorney for information relating to the representation of a client, it is important that the Department exercise close control over the issuance of such subpoenas. Therefore, the following guidelines shall be adhered to by all members of the Department in any matter involving a grand jury or trial subpoena: A. In determining whether to issue a subpoena in any matter to an attorney for information relating to the representation of a client, the approach must be to strike the proper balance between the public’s interest in the fair administration of justice and effective law enforcement and individual’s right to the effective assistance of counsel. B. All reasonable attempts shall be made to obtain information from alternative sources before issuing a subpoena to an attorney for information relating to the representation of a client.... ****** E. In approving the issuance of a subpoena in any matter to an attorney for information relating to the representation of a client, the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division shall apply the following principles: (1)In a criminal investigation or prosecution, there must be reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that the information sought is reasonably needed for the successful completion of the investigation or prosecution. The subpoena must not be used to obtain peripheral o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Duque

2. “When people may appeal any order enforcing a subpoena, it is easy to oppose every subpoena and make broad claims.... The claims are very hard to resolve, because they lack the focus on particular documents and defenses that an adjudication in contempt would produce. Win or lose, the appellants obtain delay, which they may value highly. If they lose here, they can always make more particular claims of privilege and try again. In the meantime the targets are free, memories of other witnesses are fading, evidence is disappearing.... Calendra v. United States [United States v. Calandra ], 414 U.S. 338 , 94 S.Ct. 613 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974), and Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323 , 60 S.Ct. 540 , 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940), say in no uncertain terms that such delay should not be tolerated.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harris v. State

3. “Like several other courts, this one has treated Perlman as a holding that clients always are entitled to appeal as soon as their attorneys are required to produce documents.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re: Robinson v.