Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 F.3d 903 - United States v. White

United States v. White’s Empirical Analysis

116 F.3d 903 · 1997

Citation profile

149
cited by 149 later decisions
21
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

67 federal appellate · 23 district · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 149 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably United States v. Dhinsa (2001), Cotto v. Herbert (2003)

67 federal appellate · 23 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 21 states

8801997200020102020decided

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

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Olano · Blockburger v. United States

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

  1. “[W]here a defendant has silenced a witness through the use of threats, violence or murder, admission of the victim's prior statements at least partially offsets the perpetrator's rewards for his misconduct.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Accordingly, [defense] counsel could have asked Sergeant Sutherland only if Williams [the deceased declarant] had ever lied on an employment form or violated any court orders, and could not have made reference to any extrinsic proof of those acts.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[b]ecause both the hearsay rule and the confrontation clause are designed to protect against the dangers of using out-of-court declarations as proof, a defendant's actions that make it necessary for the government to resort to such proof should be construed as a forfeiture of the protections afforded under both.”
    2 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.