Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 401 F.2d 301 - United States v. Phillips

United States v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

401 F.2d 301 · 1968

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
August 2013
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2013 · most notably Jenkins v. Delaware (1969), United States v. Aleman (1979)

52 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

310196819701980199020002010decided

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. § 2 · 26 U.S.C. § 4701

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Nye & Nissen v. United States · Cardillo v. United States · Sealfon 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[e]vidence of a prior crime 'is always ... prejudicial to a defendant. It diverts the attention of the jury from the question of the defendant's responsibility for the crime charged to the improper issue of his bad character.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[To] hold that the prior conduct is admissible notwithstanding the determination by the earlier fact finder that the defendant’s state of knowledge and level of participation did not satisfy the requirement of the criminal law . . . would eviscerate the effect of the prior acquittal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““If the proffered evidence does not have substantial relevance outweighing its potentially unduly prejudicial effect, its admission is an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Phillips, 401 F. 2d 301 (7th Cir., 1968).”
    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.