In re Search Warrant (Sealed)’s Empirical Analysis
810 F.2d 67 · 1987
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 v. City of Philadelphia (1987), United States v. Burzynski Cancer Research Institute (1987)
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 13 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 Baker v. Carr · Singleton v. Wulff · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Whalen v. Roe · Di Bella 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... the type of record requested, the information it does or might contain, the potential for harm in any subsequent , nonconsensual disclosure, the injury from disclosure to the relationship in which the record was generated, the adequacy of safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure, the degree of need for access, and whether there is an express statutory mandate, articulated public policy, or other recognizable public interest....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the identities of the patients involved are already known ... and their privacy interests are thereby diminished. Additionally, two separate mechanisms exist to guard against unauthorized disclosure. Initially, ... the district court’s special directions operate to maintain the confidentiality of these records. Thereafter, ... presentation to a grand jury' will not lead to untoward dissemination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“any privacy interests the patients may have are immediately threatened by the government having obtained such highly sensitive personal information as may be contained in their medical files.... [A]ppellate review should not be postponed — and perhaps entirely foreclosed — by a rule which would make such review available only if and when the physician is indicted, prosecuted, or convicted.”
1 later decision 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.