Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 92 Misc. 2d 410 - Andrews v. Andreoli

92 Misc. 2d 410 - Andrews v. Andreoli’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
3
states following
October 2008
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2008

6 state decisions

601977198019902000decided

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.

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

  1. “Clearly, the "cloak of confidentiality" essential to invocation of the privilege is established ... "upon an understanding, either express or implied, that the information or its sources will not be disclosed." To invoke the privilege the journalist carries the burden of proffering at least preponderant evidence of the mutuality of the understanding, or agreement, of confidentiality. He may do so by direct or indirect evidence, by presenting proof of an express, i.e., a verbalized, understanding or agreement, or by offering preponderant proof of circumstances from which a mutual agreement of confidentiality may reasonably be implied. Needless to say, the understanding or agreement of confidentiality is express when the terms thereof have been mutually stated by the principals, i.e., by the informant (i.e., source) and by the journalist. And it makes no difference who requests or offers the requisite confidentiality so long as both principals agree thereon. On the other hand, an understanding or agreement of confidentiality may be implied in fact when, from the acts and conduct of the newsman and his informant (i.e., source), or from custom and usage, or from the circumstances surrounding the imparting or gathering of the news, it is reasonable to conclude that the principals mutually intended that the identity of the source and the substance of the news or information would be maintained confidential. [ Id. at 447-48 (citation omitted).]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “essential to invocation of the privilege is established ...”
    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.