Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 825 F.2d 494 - In re Sealed Case

In re Sealed Case’s Empirical Analysis

825 F.2d 494 · 1987

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Securities & Exchange Commission v. Banner Fund International (2000), Environmental Tectonics v. W.S. Kirkpatrick, Inc. (1988)

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

1201987199020002010decided

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. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 1657 · 28 U.S.C. § 1826 · 31 U.S.C. § 5322

Relies on Malloy v. Hogan · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · United States v. Dionisio · Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. Rogers · Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino

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

  1. “[w]e have little doubt ... that our government and our people would be affronted if a foreign court tried to compel someone to violate our laws within our borders,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. In re Sealed · In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and 50 U.S.C. § 1705
  2. “sanctions represent an attempt by an American court to compel a foreign person to violate the laws of a different foreign sovereign on that sovereign's own territory,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. In re Sealed · In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and 50 U.S.C. § 1705
  3. “relevant to our conclusion that the grand jury is not left empty-handed by today's decision”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and 50 U.S.C. § 1705 · Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants

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.