United States v. Smith

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• discussing right of public access to criminal discovery materials in context of protective order
• Indeed, good cause remains the standard even where parties consent to a stipulated protective order.”
• “these rules are meant to foster the use of compulsory process to facilitate orderly preparation for trial, not to educate or titillate the public”
• “these rules are meant to foster the use of compulsory process to facilitate orderly preparation for trial, not to educate or titillate the public”
• “Because discovery is a private process between the parties to an action (even if governed by specific rules and managed by trial judges
• “None of this means that Defendants will not be able to challenge the designation of certain documents, or otherwise request a modification of the Protective Order should circumstances change.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage
  Ohio Supreme Court· 2015-03-19· cited 64×
• North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. United States
  Third Circuit· 2016-09-07· cited 39×
• Gordon v. Target Corp.
  E.D. New York· 2016-12-05· cited 39×
• In the MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF WP COMPANY LLC D/B/A the Washington Post for Access to Certain Sealed Court Records
  District of Columbia· 2016-08-18· cited 16×
• Matter of Savino
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 2014-08-13· cited 7×
• Grief v. Nassau County
  E.D. New York· 2017-03-30· cited 6×
• United States v. Dixon
  D.C. Circuit· 2019-02-08· cited 6×
• United States v. Cohen
  S.D. Illinois· 2019-02-07· cited 6×
• United States v. Silver
  S.D. New York· 2015-04-10· cited 4×
• State v. Kory L. George
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2022-05-06· cited 2×
• United States v. Armstrong
  E.D. New York· 2016-05-09· cited 2×
• United States v. Stevens
  District of Columbia· 2021-04-21
• United States v. Rosa
  District of Columbia· 2021-04-21
• Application of Los Angeles Times Communications LLC to Unseal Court Records
  District of Columbia· 2021-05-26
• United States v. Fortenberry
  District of Columbia· 2024-06-27

Cites

92 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Brady v. Maryland
  Supreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
• Johnson v. Zerbst
  Supreme Court· 1938-05-31· cited 10,545×
• Giglio v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1972-02-24· cited 7,003×
• Berger v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1935-04-15· cited 4,581×
• Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1978-04-18· cited 4,546×
• Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
  Second Circuit· 2006-01-10· cited 3,762×
• Sheppard v. Maxwell
  Supreme Court· 1966-06-06· cited 2,653×
• Alderman v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1969-03-24· cited 2,470×
• Waller v. Georgia
  Supreme Court· 1984-05-21· cited 2,166×
• Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia
  Supreme Court· 1980-07-02· cited 1,951×
• Weatherford v. Bursey
  Supreme Court· 1977-02-22· cited 1,807×
• Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cty.
  Supreme Court· 1984-01-18· cited 1,807×
• Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
  Supreme Court· 1984-05-21· cited 1,798×
• Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart
  Supreme Court· 1976-06-30· cited 1,758×
• Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, County of Norfolk
  Supreme Court· 1982-06-23· cited 1,561×
• United States v. Amodeo
  Second Circuit· 1995-12-08· cited 1,404×
• Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Riverside
  Supreme Court· 1986-06-30· cited 1,326×
• Bridges v. California
  Supreme Court· 1941-12-08· cited 874×
• Unnamed case
  Third Circuit· 1994-05-02· cited 609×
• Greg Rushford, the Washington Post Company, Intervenor v. The New Yorker Magazine, Inc., and William Shawn Reneta Adler
  Fourth Circuit· 1988-05-06· cited 591×