United States v. Jakalski’s Empirical Analysis
237 F.2d 503 · 1956
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently September 2005 · most notably 16 Ill. 2d 364 - The People v. Baker (1959), United States v. Anderson (1978)
55 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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. § 2113 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Mooney v. Holohan · United States v. Hayman · United States v. Johnson · United States v. Johnson · United States v. Spadafora
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the introduction of perjured testimony without more does not violate the constitutional rights of the accused. It is the knowing and intentional use of such testimony by the prosecuting authorities that is a denial of due process of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in the care, custody, control, management or possession of any bank”
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.