green
Positive treatment
6.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
Medlin v. Andrew
(3×)
See CBS, Inc. v. Ahern, 102 F.R.D. 820 (S.D.N.Y.1984)(busy schedule); In re Arthur Treacher’s Franchisee Litigation, 92 F.R.D. 429, 437 (E.D.Pa.1981)-(deposition of attorney); Waldbaum v. Worldvision Enterprises, Inc., 84 F.R.D. 95 (S.D.N.Y.1979)-(plaintiff’s [not defendant’s] facing criminal charges); Culp v. Devlin, 78 F.R.D. 136 (E.D.Pa.1978)-(busy public officers); but see Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d 1192 (D.C.Cir.1979), aff'd per curiam, 452 U.S. 713 , 101 S.Ct. 3132 , 69 L.Ed.2d 367 (1981)-(explore alternative means before subjecting high level officials to burdensome depositio…
examined
Cited "see"
Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati
(3×)
See Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d 1192, 1199 (D.C.Cir.1979), aff'd in part, cert. dism’d, 452 U.S. 713 , 101 S.Ct. 3132 , 69 L.Ed.2d 367 (1981) (unreasonable electronic surveillance interferes with an individual’s privacy *456 rights, triggering Fourth Amendment violations); Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed.
examined
Cited "see"
Morton H. Halperin v. Henry A. Kissinger
(3×)
See Halperin v. Kissinger (“Halperin I”), 606 F.2d 1192, 1195-99 (D.C.Cir. 1979), aff'd in part by an equally divided Court, cert. dismissed in part, 452 U.S. 713 , 101 S.Ct. 3132 , 69 L.Ed.2d 367 (1981).
examined
Cited "see"
Ralph W. McGehee v. William Casey, Director, Cia
(6×)
See Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d 1192, 1200 (D.C.Cir.1979), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 452 U.S. 713 , 101 S.Ct. 3132 , 69 L.Ed.2d 367 (1981); cf. United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 314, 320 , 92 S.Ct. 2125, 2135, 2138 , 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972) (noting the “inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept”); Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594, 653-54 (D.C.Cir.1975) (en banc) (the concept “affecting foreign relations” vague and subject to abuse).
examined
Cited "see"
Sweeney v. Bond
(3×)
See Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d 1192 , 1209-10 n.120 (D.C.Cir.1979), aff’d, 452 U.S. 713 , 101 S.Ct. 3132 , 69 L.Ed.2d 367 (1981).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A.
(3×)
In all of this it is well to remember that although the “essential thrust of the First Amendment is to prohibit improper restraints on the voluntary public expression of ideas,” there is “a concomitant freedom not to speak publicly, which serves the same ultimate end as freedom of speech in its affirmative aspect.” Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 559 , 105 S.Ct. 2218 , 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985) (quoting with approval Estate of Hemingway v. Random House, Inc., 23 N.Y.2d 341 , 296 N.Y.S.2d 771 , 244 N.E.2d 250, 255 (1968)); see also Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 …
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Harry Kenneth Clark v. Library of Congress
(3×)
See, e.g., Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d 1192, 1207-08 (D.C.Cir. 1979), aff'd in part and cert. dismissed in part, 452 U.S. 713 , 101 S.Ct. 3132 , 69 L.Ed.2d 367 (1981).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Matje v. Leis
(3×)
See e.g., Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d 1192, 1209 (D.C.Cir.1979), aff’d per curiam 452 U.S. 713 , 101 S.Ct. 3132 , 69 L.Ed.2d 367 (1981), Askew v. Bloemker, 548 F.2d 673, 679 (7th Cir.1976); Smith v. Jordan, 527 F.Supp. 167, 170-71 (S.D.Ohio 1981) (Rice, J.).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Edwards v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
(3×)
See also Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d 1192, 1209 (D.C.Cir.1979) (subjective good faith may be determined on summary judgment), aff’d in part, cert. dismissed in part, 452 U.S. 713 , 101 S.Ct. 3132 , 69 L.Ed.2d 367 (1981) (per curiam); Flying Diamond Corp. v. Pennaluna & Co., Inc., supra, 586 F.2d 707, 713 (absence of negligence may be determined on summary judgment).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Owen v. Lash
(3×)
See also Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d 1192 , 1207 and n. 100 (D.C.Cir.1979), aff’d in part, 452 U.S. 713 , 101 S.Ct. 3132 , 69 L.Ed.2d 367 (1981).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Owen v. Lash
(3×)
See also Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d 1192 , 1207 and n. 100 (D.C.Cir.1979), aff'd in part, 452 U.S. 713 , 101 S.Ct. 3132 , 69 L.Ed.2d 367 (1981).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Hobson v. Wilson
(3×)
Cf. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 262-65 , 98 S.Ct. 1042, 1051-53 , 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978); see also Halperin v. Kissinger, 196 U.S.App.D.C. 285 , 300 n. 100, 606 F.2d 1192 , 1207 n. 100 (1979), aff’d by an evenly divided Court, 452 U.S. 713 , 101 S.Ct. 3132 , 69 L.Ed.2d 367 (1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
KISSINGER ET AL.
v.
HALPERIN ET AL.
v.
HALPERIN ET AL.
79-880.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Aug 28, 1981.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 66 opinions | Published
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
Solicitor General McCree argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Assistant Attorney General Daniel, Deputy Solicitor General Geller, Mark I. Levy, Barbara L. Herwig, and Larry L. Gregg.
Mark H. Lynch argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were John H. F. Shattuck, Alan B. Morrison, and John Cary Sims.[*]
PER CURIAM.
The judgment with respect to petitioners Kissinger, Nixon, and Mitchell is affirmed by an equally divided Court. With respect to petitioner Haldeman, the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
JUSTICE REHNQUIST took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[*] Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Bertram Zweibon, pro se, for Bertram Zweibon et al.; and by Leon Friedman, Floyd Abrams, Gerald J. Brown, and James C. Goodale for Hedrick Smith et al.