United States v. Angleton’s Empirical Analysis
314 F.3d 767 · 2002
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 1958 · 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · Abney v. United States · Elkins v. United States · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The key, however, is whether the separate sovereigns have made independent decisions to prosecute, or whether, instead, “one sovereign has essentially manipulated another sovereign into prosecuting,” or because the state and federal prosecutor are the same person. The facts of Bartkus demonstrate that the degree of cooperation between federal and state authorities cannot, by itself, constitute a sham prosecution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The Bartkus Court’s failure to identify a particular instance of a sham prosecution may mean that the exception does not exist. Indeed, the close interaction between the federal and state authorities in Bartkus , which included the federal prosecutor’s decision to ‘instigate and guide’ the successive state prosecution, suggests that the sham exception exists only in the rarest of circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. KAPPMEYER v. State
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.