Inge v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
356 F.2d 345 · 1966
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Verdugo v. United States (1968), State v. DeJesus (1984)
52 federal appellate · 7 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
Relies on Mallory v. United States · Walder v. United States · Prado Oil & Gas Co. v. Federal Power Commission · Tatum v. United States · Brown 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[W]e have held that an inadmissible statement can be used only when the defendant makes ‘sweeping claims’ that go far beyond the crime charged, is impeached on a statement relating to ‘lawful proper acts’ ‘collateral’ to the issues before the jury, or is questioned about ‘minor points.’ In such situations, impeachment of the defendant affects only his credibility, since the truth of the impeaching statement does not itself tend to establish guilt."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Since then (Walder), we have held that an inadmissible statement can be used only when the defendant makes ‘sweeping claims’ that go far beyond the crime charged, [White v. United States (1965), 121 U.S.App.D.C. 287, 290 , 349 F.2d 965, 968 ] is impeached on a statement relating to ‘lawful proper acts’ [Tate v. United States (1960), 109 U.S.App.D.C. 13, 16 , 283 F.2d 377, 380 ] ‘collateral’ to the issue before the jury [Tate v. United States, supra, p. 17, 283 F.2d, p. 381], or is questioned about ‘minor points.’ [Bailey v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 241 , 242, 328 F.2d 542, 543 , cert. denied 377 U.S. 972 , 84 S.Ct. 1655 , 12 L.Ed.2d 741 (1964)]. In such situations, impeachment of the defendant affects only his creditability, since the truth of the impeaching statement does not itself tend to establish guilty. [Johnson v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 69 , 72, 344 F.2d 163, 166 (1964)].” Inge v. United States (1966), 123 U.S.App.D.C. 6 , 356 F.2d 345, 349 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rolland v. Michigan“Even if the other person was the aggressor and the defendant was justified in using force in self defense, he would not be entitled to use any greater force than he had reasonable grounds to believe and actually did believe to be necessary under the circumstances to save his life or avert serious bodily harm. In determining whether the defendant used excessive force in defending himself, you may consider ail the circumstances under which he acted. The claim of self-defense is not necessarily defeated if greater force than would have seemed necessary in cold blood was used by the defendant in the heat of passion generated by an assault upon him. A belief which may be unreasonable in cold blood may be actually and reasonably entertained in the heat of passion.”
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.