Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 82 N.J. 446 - State v. Boiardo

State v. Boiardo’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
2
states following
April 2010
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably State v. Schmid (1980), Maressa v. New Jersey Monthly (1982)

31 state decisions

1701980199020002010decided

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 Simmons v. United States · Davis v. Alaska · United States v. Nixon · Washington v. Texas · Branzburg v. Hayes

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

  1. “... there is a reasonable probability that the subpenaed materials are relevant, material and necessary to the defense, that they could not be secured from any less intrusive source, that the value of the material sought as it bears upon the issues of guilt or innocence outweighs the privilege against disclosure, and that the request is not overbroad, oppressive, or unreasonably burdensome which may be overcome by evidence that all or part of the information sought is irrelevant, immaterial, unnecessary to the defense, or that it can be secured from another source. Publication shall constitute a waiver only as to the specific materials published. [ N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-21.3]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[a] legislature which so highly valued the free flow of information ... initially made the privilege absolute for the very reason that any disclosure [ in camera or in open court] would destroy that flow. To interpret the procedural protections so as to distinguish [] the initial disclosure to the judge in camera from subsequent disclosures, potentially to the entire world, would be to disregard that judgment by the Legislature.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “any written, oral or pictorial information gathered, procured, transmitted, compiled, edited or disseminated by, or on behalf of any person engaged in, engaged on, connected with or employed by a news media and so procured or obtained while such required relationship is in effect.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.