United States v. Cokeley’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 2014
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. § 832 · 10 U.S.C. § 839 · 10 U.S.C. § 847 · 10 U.S.C. § 849 · 10 U.S.C. § 880 · 28 U.S.C. § 1783
Relies on Ohio v. Roberts · Barber v. Page · Eisenstadt v. Baker · Mancusi v. Stubbs · United States v. Inadi
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Factors to be considered include the importance of the testimony, the amount of delay necessary to obtain the in-court testimony, the trustworthiness of the alternative to live testimony, the nature and extent of earlier cross-examination, the prompt administration of justice, and any special circumstances militating for or against delay.”
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.