Levin v. Katzenbach’s Empirical Analysis
363 F.2d 287 · 1966
Citation profile
126 federal appellate · 7 district · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 206 later decisions — most recently January 2005 · most notably United States v. Carlton E. Bryant, United States of America v. William E. Turner (1971), United States v. DeCoster (1973)
126 federal appellate · 7 district · 49 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Berger v. United States · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Mooney v. Holohan · Pyle v. State of Kansas
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 206 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A number of circuits have recently held that the deception that results from negligent nondisclosure is no less damaging than that which is a product of guile and that such nondisclosure entitles the defendant to relief. We find the reasoning of such cases per suasive and essential to the fair administration of criminal justice especially in view of the disadvantages facing the accused in the trial process.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“might have led the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt about [defendants'] guilt,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““WHEREAS, the prosecution, no doubt in complete good faith, did not disclose to the defense at or before trial certain information in its possession which had some bearing on the case; and WHEREAS, the District Court did not find whether this nondisclosure was or was not negligent; and WHEREAS, if it was negligent, according to the test to be stated in an opinion or opinions to be filed by this court, it would follow in the view of the majority of this court that the defendant should be released on habeas corpus; Now, therefore, it is ORDERED by the court that the order appealed from herein is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court with direction to afford a hearing and to determine whether the government was negligent and to grant or deny the writ in accordance with that determination * * *^”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Levin v. Katzenbach
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.