Cooper v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
403 F.2d 71 · 1968
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably Gordon v. United States (1971), Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc. (2009)
37 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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. § 5005 · 18 U.S.C. § 5010
Relies on United States v. O'Brien · Johnson v. Eisentrager · Michigan v. Ohio · National Labor Relations Board v. Garwin Corp. · Mitchell III 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . .A sentence within the maximum prescribed by law will be deemed to be cruel and unusual only when such a conclusion is clearly required. Hedrick v. United States, 375 F.2d 121 (10th Cir. 1966). This is in recognition of the fact that the fixing of an adequate penalty is properly a matter of legislative concern. Hence it is only when it can be unhesitatingly said that the legislature has abused its discretion that the prescribed penalty will be abrogated by the court. Bailey v. United States, 74 F.2d 451 (10th Cir. 1934).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. While indications in the presence of the jury [by the judge] that statements of the defense counsel are ridiculous, are not to be encouraged, such conduct certainly does not constitute reversible error. Petersen v. United States, 268 F.2d 87 , 88 (10th Cir. 1959). Indeed, that incident and the others discussed above, were no more than displays indicative of a firm control of the proceedings and fall well within the reasonable bounds within which a trial judge may act. Inland Freight Lines v. United States, 191 F.2d 313 (10th Cir. 1951). [Emphasis supplied.] 403 F.2d, at 73 .”
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.