Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 342 F.2d 137 - Thompson v. United States

Thompson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

342 F.2d 137 · 1965

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
5
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Goings v. United States (1967), Barnett v. United States (1967)

18 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

70196519701980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Carroll v. United States · Berger v. United States · Ker v. State of California · United States v. Rabinowitz · Preston v. United States

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

  1. “It is true that the court has an obligation to prevent witnesses from `putting into the record the contents of an otherwise inadmissible writing under the guise of refreshing recollection.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]here there was an absence of the customary formalistic wording to show inability to recollect without aid and the refreshing effect of the twiting, the context of the specific queries, the witness’ spoken reaction and the trial judge’s opportunity to observe the witness’ demeanor, leave no occasion to find reversible error in his rulings on these objections.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The fact that a government agent instead of the witness prepared the statement [used to refresh recollection] is inconsequential.”
    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.