Grand Jury Proceedings Special September Blair v. Administrator of Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission’s Empirical Analysis
942 F.2d 1195 · 1991
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 2019
3 federal appellate · 4 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 United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. · Douglas Oil Company of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest · United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc. · Lucas v. Turner · Grand Jury Proceedings Miller Brewing Company
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“grand jury proceedings have been closed to the public, and records of such proceedings have been kept from the public eye”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"[S]afeguarding the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings" serves "several distinct interests": "First, if preindictment proceedings were made public, many prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily, knowing that those against whom they testify would be aware of that testimony. Moreover, witnesses who appeared before the grand jury would be less likely to testify fully and frankly, as they would be open to retribution as well as to inducements. There also would be the risk that those about to be indicted would flee, or would try to influence individual grand jurors to vote against indictment. Finally, by preserving the secrecy of the proceedings, we assure that persons who are accused but exonerated by the grand jury will not be held up to public ridicule."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"Thus, to overcome these interests, the standard for determining when the traditional secrecy of the grand jury may be broken is deliberately stringent: parties seeking disclosure of grand jury transcripts 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. Douglas Oil Co., 441 U.S. at 222 , 99 S.Ct. at 1674 . Put simply, the secrecy of the grand jury proceeding will not be broken except where the party seeking disclosure can show a `compelling necessity' or a `particularized need.' Id."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.