Jackson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
353 F.2d 862 · 1965
Citation profile
105 federal appellate · 5 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2020 · most notably United States v. Mendenhall (1980), United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977)
105 federal appellate · 5 district · 37 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 Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · United States v. Ventresca · Norris v. State of Alabama · Davis 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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“testimony can be ‘disprove[d] ... as a matter of logic by the uncontradicted facts or by scientific evidence’ or when ‘the person whose testimony is under scrutiny made allegations which seem highly questionable in the light of common experience and knowledge, or behaved in a manner strongly at variance with the way in which we would normally expect a similarly situated person to behave.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Sometimes, it is possible to disprove testimony as a matter of logic by the uncontradicted facts or by scientific evidence, [citations omitted] But the doctrine of inherent incredibility does not require such positive proof. It is enough to invoke the doctrine if the person whose testimony is under scrutiny made allegations which seem highly questionable in light of common experience and knowledge, or behaved in a manner strongly at variance with the way in which we would normally expect a similarly situated person to behave.”
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.