United States v. Combs’s Empirical Analysis
390 F.2d 426 · 1968
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 2009
4 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
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. § 144
Relies on Offutt v. United States · Cooke v. United States · Harris v. United States · United States v. Peter E. Bradt, United States of America v. Theodore G. Albert
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a matter of fact the United States does not contend that the apparent activity of Mr. Combs was carried on in a furtive manner; it contends that such nonpermissive activity was so unpretentious that it would have gone completely unnoticed except for the exaggerated delay in disassembling the recorder at the conclusion of the hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“entangled with the judge's personal feeling against the lawyer.”
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.