United States v. Suarez’s Empirical Analysis
880 F.2d 626 · 1989
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Multi Ag Media LLC v. Department of Agriculture (2008), ABC, Inc. v. Stewart (2004)
20 federal appellate · 2 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. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia · Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California Riverside County · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Company · City of Riverside v. Rivera
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not detract from the public's strong interest in how its funds are being spent in the administration of criminal justice and what amounts of public funds are paid to particular private attorneys or firms”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because there is no persuasive reason to ignore the presumption of openness that applies to documents submitted in connection with a criminal proceeding, we conclude that the public has a qualified First Amendment right of access to the CJA forms after payment has been approved.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The newspaper's] request for CJA information is narrow. [It] disavows any entitlement to the work product, trial strategy or privileged communications of defendants or their counsel.... [I]t seeks only 'the barebones data' of who was paid, how much and for what services, i.e., only the cover-sheets.”
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.