Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 266 F.2d 397 - Clements v. United States

Clements v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

266 F.2d 397 · 1959

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
12
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably 21 Cal. 4th 737 - People v. Frazer (1999), United States v. Knipp (1992)

13 federal appellate · 15 state decisions — followed in 12 states

17019591960197019801990200020102020decided

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. § 3282 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Calvin R. Morgan v. Riverside Mills Company, C. A. Folk, T. I. Ward · Falter v. United States · United States v. Powers · United States v. Kurzenknabe

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

  1. “[I]t is one thing to revive a prosecution already dead, and another to give it a longer lease of life. The question turns upon how much violence is done to our instinctive feelings of justice and fair play. For the state to assure a man that he has become safe from its pursuit, and thereafter to withdraw its assurance, seems to most of us unfair and dishonest. But, while the chase is on, it does not shock us to have it extended beyond the time first set, or, if it does, the state forgives it.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The amendment was not an ex post facto law. It did not render a previously innocent act criminal. This statute did not aggravate or increase the punishment for the crimes here involved. The enactment did not alter the rules of evidence. An innocent act was not thereby penalized while assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies. Nor was the accused deprived thereby of some protection or defense previously available.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.”
    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.