United States v. Self’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 2016
1 federal appellate ·
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 10 U.S.C. § 3262 · 10 U.S.C. § 672 · 10 U.S.C. § 802 · 10 U.S.C. § 831 · 10 U.S.C. § 836 · 10 U.S.C. § 886 · 10 U.S.C. § 934 · 10 U.S.C. § 972
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Standard Oil Co of California v. Johnson · Billings v. Truesdell · People v. Kelley · United States v. Smith
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any acts of military officials which authoritatively presage a court-martial, when viewed in the light of surrounding circumstances, are surely sufficient under paragraph lid of the Manual for Courts-Martial to authorize retention on active duty for purposes of trial. Even if a trial by court-martial does not eventuate for one reason or another, clairvoyant positiveness has never been required.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While retained on active duty a servicemember is subject to the Uniform Code. See Article 2, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 802 . Paragraph lid of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition), provides authority for retaining a servicemember on active duty so that he remains subject to military jurisdiction. Moreover, it also seems to contemplate that court-martial jurisdiction, having once attached, continues even if an accused is released from active duty. See United States v. Schuering, 16 U.S.C. M.A. 324, 330, 36 C.M.R. 480, 486 (1966); United States v. Rubenstein, 7 U.S.C. M.A. 523, 22 C.M.R. 313 (1957); Perlstein v. United States, 151 F.2d 167 (3d Cir. 1945), cert. dismissed as moot, 328 U.S. 822 , 66 S.Ct. 1358 , 90 L.Ed. 1602 (1946).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“can say that at some precise moment the sovereign had authoritatively signaled its intent to impose its legal processes upon the individual ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Allen v. Ok Steele
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.