Case Citator › Roviaro v. United States

Roviaro v. United States

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Questioned by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
353 U.S. 53
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
85 of 85
Citing cases (total)
3,599
Treatment dates
1973
Questioned by some courts
At least one reviewed court has questioned this case’s reasoning or continued validity. No reviewed court has overruled it. Roviaro v. United States has been questioned: all 85 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below. People v. Patejdl expressly questioned the continuing vitality of Roviaro's balancing principle while acknowledging that the decision had not been overruled.
More on how this was screened

The other reviewed opinions applied Roviaro's case-specific informer-privilege balance, distinguished it on the facts or procedure, reported Roviaro's own displacement of absolute privilege rules, or placed unrelated treatment language near the citation. One Ninth Circuit opinion expressly rejected an argument that later authority had overruled Roviaro's principles. An unpublished portion of a partially published opinion and three nonprecedential opinions produced no adverse treatment.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

3,599 later cases cite Roviaro v. United States; 85 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Roviaro v. United States?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Questioned

  • The court expressly questioned how much vitality remained in Roviaro's informer-privilege balancing principle, while recognizing that the Supreme Court had not overruled the decision.

    People v. Patejdl · California Court of Appeal, Fifth District · filed

    What vitality remains in the sensible balancing principle announced in Roviaro v. United States (1957) 353 U.S. 53 [1 L.Ed.2d 639, 77 S.Ct. 623] is not clear, though the case has not been expressly or impliedly overruled.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Roviaro v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace