United States v. Blackley’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 28 U.S.C. § 1826 · 28 U.S.C. § 49 · 28 U.S.C. § 591 · 28 U.S.C. § 592 · 28 U.S.C. § 594
Relies on Morrison v. Olson · United States v. Busher · United States v. Poindexter · In Re Alphonso Michael Espy · United States v. Crop Growers Corp.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress designated the Special Division a “division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.” 28 U.S.C. § 49 . For this court to review the constitutionality of the referral jurisdiction granted in In re Espy would require it to sit in an appellate capacity over the D.C. Circuit, which it cannot and will not do. If the Special Division concluded that “the new matter is demonstrably related to the factual circumstances that gave rise to the Attorney General’s initial investigation and request for appointment of an independent counsel,” ... this court is not empowered to disturb those findings. Nor may this court substitute its own constitutional analysis of § 594(e) ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“IC Smaltz maintains that the referral matter directly overlaps his current jurisdiction in terms of persons involved, witnesses, patterns of conduct, and applicable law, and that the factual basis of the referral matter arose directly from his investigation of whether Secretary Espy violated any federal criminal law relating in any way to the acceptance of gifts by him from organizations or individuals with business pending before the Department of Agriculture. While he concedes that the original jurisdictional mandate makes no specific mention of the precise factual matters underlying his referral request, IC Smaltz explains that they share the common foundation of improper influence exerted in connection with items pending before the Department of Agriculture in return for favors or gifts to Secretary Espy or those close to him, suggesting an ongoing pattern of sueh dealings, and that certain close associates of Secretary Espy are deeply involved in all of these matters.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“shall, except to the extent that to do so would be inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter, comply with the written or other established policies of the Department of Justice respecting enforcement of the criminal laws.”
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.