United States v. Podde’s Empirical Analysis
105 F.3d 813 · 1997
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably United States v. Bunner (1998), United States v. Midgley (1998)
13 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
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. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 31 U.S.C. § 5313
Relies on United States v. Marion · Green v. United States · Arizona v. Washington · Oregon v. Kennedy · United States v. Scott
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The constitutional prohibition against “double jeopardy” was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense.... The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past. Such a time limit may also have the salutary effect of encouraging law enforcement officials promptly to investigate suspected criminal activity.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“in no way affects the fact that his defense to the original charges may have been jeopardized by the passage of time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.