Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 418 F.2d 449 - Hill v. United States

Hill v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

418 F.2d 449 · 1968

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
6
states following
August 2004
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 6 district · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently August 2004 · most notably Dale B. Menard v. John N. Mitchell and John Edgar Hoover (1970), Robinson v. United States (1972)

31 federal appellate · 6 district · 33 state decisions

62019681970198019902000decided

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

Relies on Bruton v. United States · Preston v. United States · United States v. Lefkowitz · Schaffer v. United States · Drew 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) Joinder of crimes. Two or more crimes may be charged in the same complaint, information or indictment in a separate count for each crime if the crimes charged, whether felonies or misdemeanors, or both, are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. When a misdemeanor is joined with a felony, the trial shall be in the court with jurisdiction to try the felony. (3) Relief from prejudicial joinder. If it appears that a defendant or the State is prejudiced by a joinder of crimes or of defendants in a complaint, information or indictment or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires.”
    3 later decisions 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.