Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 388 F.2d 931 - Baker v. United States

Baker v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

388 F.2d 931 · 1968

Citation profile

93
cited by 93 later decisions
6
states following
October 2007
most recently cited

76 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently October 2007 · most notably United States v. Weston (1971), United States v. Rosner (1973)

76 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

77019681970198019902000decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Williams v. People of State of New York · Kent v. United States · Townsend v. Burke · Williams v. State of Oklahoma

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

  1. “No conviction or criminal charge should be included in the report, or considered by the court, unless referable to an official record.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “By its terms, the rule is permissive as to whether the court discloses all or part of the material contained in the report of presentence investigation. We are mindful that in the district courts in this Circuit there is wide variation in the practice concerning disclosure. In one district disclosure of all is the rule, withholding of part is the exception. In other districts, including at least' one where disclosure of the report has resulted in improper pressures being visited on confidential informants, with the consequent risk that limitation of the sources of information and effectiveness of the report will ensue, the practice is to treat the presentence report as a confidential document solely for consideration by the court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Legal literature is replete with a debate over the pros and cons of disclosure and non-disclosure, but we need look no further than the District of Maryland in determining how district judges should be guided. In the District of Maryland, disclosure of presentence reports, in accordance with my views, has been the practice for over ten years. The experience of Maryland belies the fears that, as general propositions, sources of confidential information dry up, probation officers are deprived of trustworthy and logical informants, and the object of the report is defeated, if the contents of reports are disclosed.”
    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.