Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 375 F.2d 895 - Kaplan v. United States

Kaplan v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

375 F.2d 895 · 1967

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
5
states following
December 2013
most recently cited

60 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably United States v. Fioravanti (1969), United States v. Crespo de Llano (1987)

60 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions

370196719701980199020002010decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 472 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Glasser v. United States · Escobedo v. Illinois · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Preston 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the trial court 'must be able ... to rely upon counsel's representations that the possibility of such a conflict does or does not exist'.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We find no error in the denial of [defendants’] motion to have government summaries of defendants’ statements given before trial produced for [defendants’] use. No such statements were offered in evidence against defendants, or used at the trial against them in any way. [Defendants] demanded in .. . their motion the production of written memoranda made by government agents of oral statements made by defendants not shown to nor signed by defendants. They were not records ‘belonging’ to [defendants] Rule 16, Fed.R.Crim.P.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “without any possibility of conflict of interest present between any two . . . defendants.”
    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.