Grimes v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
396 F.2d 331 · 1968
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3 · 28 U.S.C. § 144 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Fay v. Noia · Berger v. United States · Stevens v. Marks · Mastro Plastics Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Prado Oil & Gas Co. v. Federal Power Commission
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . [T]he movant must show that the testimony was perjured and that the prosecuting officials knew at the time such testimony was used that it was perjured. . . . In addition, the perjured testimony said to have been knowingly used must be particularized definitely.” 344 F.2d at 880 (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Donnelly v. State
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.