Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 409 F.2d 1225 - United States v. Huff

United States v. Huff’s Empirical Analysis

409 F.2d 1225 · 1969

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
2
states following
May 1995
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 1995 · most notably United States v. Bennett (1972), United States v. Holmes (1971)

21 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

2501969197019801990decided

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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244

Relies on Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · United States v. Jackson · Murphy v. Houma Well Service · Greenwood v. United States · Lyles 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Two-part jury trials are rare in our jurisprudence; they have never been compelled by this Court as a matter of constitutional law or even as a matter of federal procedure.” Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554, 568 , 87 S.Ct. 648, 656 , 17 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We know of no constitutional or statutory provision which requires the trial judge to hold a two-part jury trial on the issues of guilt or innocence and mental incompetency at the time of the commission of the alleged crime.” 409 F.2d at 1228 .”
    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.