Grand Jury’s Empirical Analysis
832 F.2d 554 · 1987
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently October 2024
10 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 3731 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on United States v. Nixon · Cobbledick v. United States · Douglas Oil Company of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest · Di Bella v. United States · United States v. Ryan
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“And the subpoenaed party, unless he has either a particularly close relationship to the putative privilege-holder or a personal interest in nondisclosure of the material, is unlikely to risk a contempt citation simply to vindicate the rights of a third party.” In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F.2d 554 , 558 (11th Cir.1987). Similarly, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has stated,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”
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.