Kyle v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
297 F.2d 507 · 1961
Citation profile
80 federal appellate · 5 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably United States v. Keogh (1968), Barbee v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary (1964)
80 federal appellate · 5 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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. § 3481 · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 2111 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Hamilton v. Alabama · Rogers v. Richmond
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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * * * * * * * [W]here the conduct of the trial has been less censurable, or not censurable at all, a greater showing of prejudice is demanded, because the interest in obtaining an ideal trial, with the trier of fact considering all admissible evidence that has become available, and nothing else, is not thus supplemented and may be outweighed by the interest in avoiding a retrial unlikely to have a different outcome * * *.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Section 2255 is not limited to cases where the sentence was imposed ‘in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States’ but includes the more general phrase ‘or is otherwise subject to collateral attack,’ the boundaries of which have not been defined, save, of course, that ‘mere error’ is not enough.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * the required showing of prejudice [seems somewhat] to vary inversely, with the degree to which the conduct of the trial has violated basic concepts of fair play. * * * ” Kyle v. United States, 297 F.2d 507, 514 (2nd Cir. 1961).”
2 later decisions 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.