Seattle Times Company v. United States District Court for Western District of Washington Hearst Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
845 F.2d 1513 · 1988
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 11 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Executive Software North America, Inc. v. United States District Court for the Central District of California (1994), Times Mirror Co. v. United States (1989)
37 federal appellate · 11 district · 5 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 18 U.S.C. § 1365 (Federal Anti-Tampering Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3153 (§ 201 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974)
Relies on Simmons v. United States · United States v. Salerno · Irvin v. Dowd · Fisher v. United States · United States v. Salvucci
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“firmly convinced that the district court has erred,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The opinion should not be understood as holding that the only appropriate time to consider the fifth amendment issue is when the government seeks to use the testimony in question. At least until the question left open by the Court in Ka-han is decided [whether use immunity applies to statements a defendant makes with respect to his finances in obtaining court-appointed counsel], “it is appropriate for a defendant to raise a fifth amendment objection at the time he is required to submit the financial information necessary to obtain court-appointed counsel.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he district court’s determination here was based on an assumption that unsealing the financial affidavits would tend to incriminate Nickell. This assumption is premature. We do not know what use, if any, the government will try to make of the information contained in the affidavits. Therefore, any fifth amendment problem is at this juncture speculative and prospective only.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.