Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1 F.3d 985 - United States v. Cooley

United States v. Cooley’s Empirical Analysis

1 F.3d 985 · 1993

Citation profile

197
cited by 197 later decisions
7
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

82 federal appellate · 26 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 197 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States of America, v. Microsoft Corporation, (2001), Green v. Branson (1997)

82 federal appellate · 26 district · 9 state decisions

7201993200020102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 1509 · 28 U.S.C. § 144 · 28 U.S.C. § 455

Relies on In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. · In re Disbarment of Sacco · Nogueras v. Puerto Rico International Airlines, Inc. · Kokkonen v. Democratic National Committee Chairman

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

  1. “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) Rumor, speculation, beliefs, conclusions, innuendo, suspicion, opinion, and similar non-factual matters; (2) the mere fact that a judge has previously expressed an opinion on a point of law or has expressed a dedication to upholding the law or a determination to impose severe punishment within the limits of the law upon those found guilty of a particular offense; (3) prior rulings in the proceeding, or another proceeding, solely because they were adverse; (4) mere familiarity with the defendant(s), or the type of charge, or kind of defense presented; (5) baseless personal attacks on or suits against the judge by a party; (6) reporters’ personal opinions or characterizations appearing in the media, media notoriety, and reports in the media purporting to be factual, such as quotes attributed to the judge or others, but which are in fact false or materially inaccurate or misleading; and (7) threats or other attempts to intimidate the judge.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “whether a reasonable person, knowing all the relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality.”
    9 later decisions 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.