Clancy v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
244 federal appellate · 15 district · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 372 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2018 · most notably United States v. Nobles (1975), Gravel v. United States (1972)
244 federal appellate · 15 district · 42 state decisions — followed in 13 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Clancy (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Jencks v. United States · Campbell v. United States · Rosenberg v. United States · Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd.
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 372 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The term “statement”, as used in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section in relation to any witness called by the United States, means— (1) a written statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him[.]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Since the production of at least some of the statements withheld was a right of the defense, it is not for us to speculate whether they could have been utilized effectively.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Since the production of at least some of the statements withheld was a right of the defense, it is not for us to speculate whether they could have been utilized effectively. As we said in Jencks v. United States, supra, 353 U.S. [657] 667, 77 S.Ct. [1007] 1013 [ 1 L.Ed.2d 1103 ]; “ ‘Flat contradiction between the witness’ testimony and the version of the events given in his report is not .the only test of inconsistency. The omission from the reports of facts related at the trial, or a contrast in emphasis upon the same facts, even a different order of treatment, are also relevant to the cross-examining process of testing the credibility of a witness’ trial testimony.’ ””
3 later decisions 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.