United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

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

1. ““In a criminal prosecution for a refusal to obey a Selective Service Board order ‘the scope of judicial inquiry into the administrative proceedings leading to the defendant’s classification is very limited.’ Blalock v. United States, 247 F.2d 615, 619 (4 Cir. 1957). The courts are not to weigh the evidence to determine whether the classification made by the local boards was justified. The decisions of local boards made in conformity with the regulations are final even though they may be erroneous. The question of jurisdiction of the local board is reached only if there is no basis in fact for the classification which it gave the registrant. Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114, 122 , 66 S.Ct. 423 , 90 L.Ed. 567 (1946); Blalock v. United States, supra.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Shacter · United States v. Foran

2. “Defendant assigns as error the District Court’s refusal to admit evidence tending to show prejudice on the part of a Selective Service official. It is to be noted that defendant did not appeal his classification to the Appeals Board established within the Selective Service structure for such purpose. He failed to exhaust the administrative remedies provided by the Uniform Military Training and Service Act and the limited power of review precludes the federal court from entertaining a claim of prejudice not raised before the appropriate administrative agency.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Dyer

3. “In order to prove a denial of the sixth amendment right to a speedy trial it must be shown that the defendant’s trial preparation was prejudiced and that the government’s conduct was culpable or oppressive. United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 , 86 S.Ct. 773 , 15 L.Ed.2d 627 (1966). See United States v. Simmons, 338 F.2d 804 (2 Cir. 1964).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 75 Wash. 2d 678 - State v. Christensen