Young v. United States Department of Justice’s Empirical Analysis
882 F.2d 633 · 1989
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Bates v. Long Island Railroad (1993), Twiss v. State, Dept. of Treasury (1991)
11 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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 12 U.S.C. § 3402 · 12 U.S.C. § 3403 · 12 U.S.C. § 3409 · 12 U.S.C. § 3413 · 28 U.S.C. § 1782
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate J Bosch Second National Bank of New Haven · County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co.
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress passed the RFPA in response to the Supreme Court's holding that a bank customer has no constitutionally protected privacy interest in bank records. The Act provides statutory protection against unrestricted access to financial records to "fill the void in ... Federal law [left by Miller ]." Congress and the executive regard the Act as a compromise between a "bank customer's right of financial privacy and the need of law enforcement agencies to obtain financial records pursuant to legitimate investigations."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a party who benefits from the assertion of a certain position, from subsequently adopting a contrary position.... It is supposed to protect judicial integrity by preventing litigants from playing “fast and loose” with courts, thereby avoiding unfair results and “unseemliness.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is rooted in the concept that the law should recognize some relationships as confidential to encourage uninhibited discussions between the parties involved.”
2 later decisions 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.