Newsday Inc Limited Unsealing of Affidavit Supporting Search Warrant Dated June Gardner v. Newsday Inc’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Forsyth v. Barr (1994), United States v. Amodeo (1995)
4 federal appellate · 8 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
Relies on Katz v. United States · Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. · Waller v. Georgia · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Company · Berger v. New York
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he privacy interests of innocent third parties ... should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Times Mirror Co. v. United States, [ 873 F.2d 1210 (9th Cir.1989) ] the Ninth Circuit held that there was no constitutional or common law right to inspect a warrant application during the pendency of the investigation. [Id. at 1218-19]. On the other hand, in In re Search Warrant for Secretarial Area Outside the Office of Thomas Gunn, [ 855 F.2d 569 (8th Cir.1988) ] the Eighth Circuit held that there was a qualified constitutional right of access to search warrant applications once the warrant had been executed, even if the investigation had not been completed. [Id. at 573]. Taking a middle position, the Fourth Circuit, in In re Baltimore Sun Co. [v. Goetz, 886 F.2d 60 (4th Cir.1989)], agreed with the Ninth Circuit that there was no constitutional right of access, but held that a common law right of inspection attached once the warrant had been filed. [Id. at 64-65].”
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.