Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 992 F.2d 449 - Vingelli v. United States

Vingelli v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

992 F.2d 449 · 1993

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
states following
July 2013
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably State v. Gonzalez (2010), Gerald Lefcourt Pc v. United States (1997)

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

140199320002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1826

Relies on United States v. Calandra · Upjohn Company v. United States · Branzburg v. Hayes · Fisher v. United States · United States v. Dionisio

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

  1. “Recognizing that client identity and fee information are not presently sheltered under the privilege, defense counsel urges that the information sought falls into one of the special exceptions to that rule. What those "special circumstances" are that would protect this information has not been precisely defined. What they are remains as enigmatic as the smile that Leonardo Da Vinci left us on the face of the Mona Lisa.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “they are not the kinds of disclosures that would not have been made absent the privilege and their disclosure does not incapacitate the attorney from rendering legal advice.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The rule governing the unprivileged nature of client identification implicitly accepts the fact that a client might retain or consult an attorney for numerous reasons. Thus, the fact that disclosure of [the elientyfee-payer’s identity] might suggest the possibility of wrongdoing on his or her part does not affect analysis of whether disclosure would reveal a confidential communication.”
    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.