Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 91 F.3d 1270 - Roe v. Sherry

Roe v. Sherry’s Empirical Analysis

91 F.3d 1270 · 1996

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
November 2016
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Africa v. City of Philadelphia (1998), Ferm v. United States Trustee (1999)

17 federal appellate · 5 district ·

170199620002010decided

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 10 U.S.C. § 928 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412

Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Siegert v. Gilley · Horton v. California · Minnesota v. Dickerson · Arizona v. Hicks

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “properly seized under plain view doctrine, where officers could reasonably believe report was evidence relevant to whether defendant violated military order not to engage in unprotected sex and to inform potential partners of HIV status). 45 The only remaining issue is whether, in the light of clearly established law, Lieutenant Nelson could reasonably have believed that he had a lawful right of access to the ADR log. The district court determined on summary judgment that the officers did not have lawful access to the log, because”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the type of record requested, the information it does or might contain, the potential for harm in any subsequent nonconsensual disclosure, the injury from disclosure to the relationship in which the record was generated, the adequacy of safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure, the degree of need for access, and whether there is an express statutory mandate, articulated public policy, or other recognizable public interest militating toward access.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “is not absolute; rather, it is a conditional right which may be infringed upon a showing of proper governmental interest.”
    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.