Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 352 F.2d 263 - United States v. Goldman

United States v. Goldman’s Empirical Analysis

352 F.2d 263 · 1965

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
4
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Berry v. City of Muskogee (1990), 68 Ill. 2d 101 - People v. McCutcheon (1977)

22 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

120196519701980199020002010decided

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 Green v. United States · Hirabayashi v. United States · Downum v. United States · Ex parte Lange · United States v. Trenton Potteries Co.

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

  1. “Protection against double jeopardy has two distinct aspects. It serves as a safeguard against unfair double punishment and it also protects the accused from the unfair harassment of successive trials .... But, neither logic nor fairness requires that consecutive determinations in a single trial on two charges growing out of a single transaction be regarded as within the concept of harassment by repetitious litigation constituting double jeopardy. 352 F.2d at 226 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “One of the purposes of the protection against double jeopardy is to protect an 'accused from the unfair harassment of successive trials.'”
    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.