United States v. King’s Empirical Analysis
150 F.3d 644 · 1998
Citation profile
12 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 2016
12 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
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Koon v. United States · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Morrison v. Olson · Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Martin Exploration Management Co.
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘The law in this case is that even though the defendant has no obligation to prove anything, he has the opportunity to subpoena witnesses, just as well as the Government. The defendant can call witnesses, or not, and you can draw the inference from the fact that he didn’t call the agents, ladies and gentlemen, but the agents’ — ... ‘I’ll repeat for the jury, he has no obligation to call anyone, but he has an opportunity to call them, ladies and gentlemen.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In a case like this where the defendant himself has broached the subject of missing witnesses by asking the jury to in a sense penalize the government for its failure to produce the agents, the prosecutor’s argument in response clearly was proper.”
1 later decision 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.