Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 365 U.S. 301 - Green v. United States

Green v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1961

Citation profile

1,535
cited by 1,535 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
41
states following
November 2025
most recently cited

817 federal appellate · 48 district · 439 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,535 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2025 · most notably Hill v. United States (1962), McGautha v. California (1971)

817 federal appellate · 48 district · 439 state decisions — followed in 41 states

30401961197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Holiday v. Johnston · Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Reddish · Couch v. United States · Taylor v. United States

Cited together with Hill v. United States · Prince v. United States · United States v. Olano · Heflin v. United States · Strickland v. Washington

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 1,535 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The most persuasive counsel may not be able to speak for a defendant as the defendant might, with halting eloquence, speak for himself.”
    89 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Before imposing sentence the court shall afford the defendant an opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf and to present any information in mitigation of punishment.”
    20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “Although petitioner is technically correct that sentences should not have been imposed on both counts, the remedy which he seeks does not follow. This is not a case where sentence was passed on two counts stating alternative means of committing one offense; rather, the third count involved additional characteristics which made the offense an aggravated one — namely, putting persons in jeopardy of life by use of a dangerous weapon. Plainly enough, the intention of the district judge was to impose the maximum sentence of twenty-five years for aggravated bank robbery, and the formal defect in his procedure should not vitiate his considered judgment.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.