Gajewski v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
321 F.2d 261 · 1963
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2007 · most notably United States v. Nobles (1975), United States v. Dellinger (1972)
65 federal appellate · 24 state decisions — followed in 18 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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 151 · 26 U.S.C. § 25 · 7 U.S.C. § 1281 (Agricultural Act of 1948) · 7 U.S.C. § 1373
Relies on Abrams v. United States · Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. United States · Goss v. Board of Education · Barenblatt v. United States · Illinois ex rel. Kennedy v. Hurley
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To be sure, an accused’s right to call relevant witnesses and to present a complete defense may not be abrogated for the sake of trial convenience or for the purpose of protecting a United States Attorney from possible embarrassment while testifying; if he possesses information vital to the defense. * * * ” [Emphasis added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Certainly it would be improper for a United States district attorney to prosecute a defendant on the basis of facts wholly or partially acquired by the prosecutor through prior professional relations as the accused’s private attorney. (Citing authorities). But equally as certain, according to the same authorities, the mere fact that a prosecuting attorney previously represented an accused in a civil matter does not ipso facto require disqualification of the attorney in the criminal proceeding. If there is no substantial relationship between the former civil representation and the present criminal prosecution, and if the prosecutor will not be called upon to use against his former client any confidential knowledge gained through their former association, no prejudice will result to the accused.” (Citing authorities). 321 F. 2d, at p. 267 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Although, as the above authorities indicate, such judicial discretion is generally exercised to prevent testimony by an advocate in favor of the party whom he represents, a court may, without abusing its discretion, refuse to allow the defense to call as a witness the United States Attorney trying the case.””
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.