Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 922 F.2d 1448 - Lynde Lzp Rienks

Lynde Lzp Rienks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
September 2017
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 2017

3 federal appellate · 7 district ·

100199020002010decided

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 United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Costello v. United States · United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. · Dennis v. United States · Douglas Oil Company of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest

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

  1. “Parties seeking grand jury transcripts under Rule 6(e) must show that the material they seek is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding, that the need for disclosure is greater than the need for. continued secrecy, and that their request is structured to cover only material so needed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “not only the immediate effects upon a particular grand jury, but also the possible effect upon the functioning of future grand juries. Persons called upon to testify will consider the likelihood that their testimony may one day be disclosed to outside parties. Fear of future retribution or social stigma may act as powerful deterrents to those who would come forward and aid the grand jury in the performance of its duties. Concern as to the future consequences of frank and full testimony is heightened where the witness is an employee of a company under investigation. Thus, the interests in grand jury secrecy, although reduced, are not eliminated merely because the grand jury has ended its activities.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(C) Disclosure otherwise prohibited by this rule of matters occurring before the grand jury may also be made— (i) when so directed by a court preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding; (ii) when permitted by a court at the request of the defendant, upon a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the grant jury; If the court orders disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury, the disclosure shall be made in such manner, at such time, and under such conditions as the court may direct.”
    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.