United States v. Comulada’s Empirical Analysis
340 F.2d 449 · 1965
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2013 · most notably United States v. Cronic (1984), United States v. Williams (1979)
46 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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. § 3500 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Mesarosh v. United States · Beck v. United States · Bandy v. United States · Campbell v. United States · Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““... Indeed, every consideration of efficiency and economy would seem to require the destruction of such fragmentary memoranda as soon as they are no longer needed. Where every sensible motive supported destruction and no reason was advanced to suppose that the destruction was for an improper purpose, it would have been a needless waste of time to permit a voir dire inquiry.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that within two years after final judgment the defendant may move for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence in the district court. If the case is on appeal, the district court may certify that if the case is remanded, a new trial will be granted, and the appellate court will generally comply by remanding the case. Rule 33, supra; United States v. Minkoff, 181 F.2d 538 (2d Cir. 1950); see also United States v. Smith, 331 F.2d 145 (6 Cir. 1964) . . .." United States v. Comulada, 340 F.2d 449, 452 (2d Cir. 1965).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We note that in case after case, in appeals from convictions for trafficking in narcotics, we hear arguments regarding the government’s failure to call the informer or special employee. ... It seems to be defense strategy to bring out facts from which it can be argued that the government or the court should have called the informer as a witness. Almost never is there a genuine effort to find the witness or to call him even when it is certain that he is available and subject to process . . .We think that this is another such case, (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.