Hernly v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
832 F.2d 980 · 1987
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 2017
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6103
Relies on United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. · Douglas Oil Company of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest · United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc. · United States v. Baggot · United States v. Rose
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“highly flexible, adaptable to different circumstances and sensitive to the fact that the requirements of secrecy are greater in some situations than in others,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[C]ourts must consider not only the immediate effects upon a particular grand jury, but also the possible effect upon the functioning of future grand juries____ Fear of future retribution or social stigma may act as powerful deterrents to those who would come forward and aid the grand jury in the performance of its duties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“relevancy and usefulness to another case [are] not enough to require disclosure of grand jury materials”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.