United States v. Egan’s Empirical Analysis
394 F.2d 262 · 1968
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably United States v. Clark (1969), Wiegand v. State (2001)
16 federal appellate · 10 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 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984)
Relies on Carlson v. Landon · Difronzo v. United States · Taylor v. Taintor · Walker v. City of Birmingham · Reese 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the Government moves the court for a modification of the terms of the bond, it should give reasonable notice of the motion to the defendant and the surety.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(f) Forfeiture. (1) Declaration. If there is a breach of condition of a bond, the district court shall declare a forfeiture of the bail. (2) Setting aside. The court may direct that a forfeiture be set aside, upon such conditions as the court may impose, if it appears that justice does not require the enforcement of the forfeiture, (emphasis added) (4) Remission. After entry of such judgment [of default 1 ], the court may remit it in whole or in part under the conditions applying to the setting aside of forfeiture in paragraph (2) of this subdivision, (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The arrest of the defendants by the Immigration and Naturalization Service did not ipso facto operate as a discharge of the surety's obligation as a matter of law.... Had the surety been called upon to produce the defendants while they were incarcerated in connection with the Immigration charge and could not do so because of their imprisonment, [the surety's claim that its performance had been rendered impossible requiring exoneration] might have some merit”
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.