United States v. Laite’s Empirical Analysis
418 F.2d 576 · 1969
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 1984
15 federal appellate · 3 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
Relies on Benton v. Maryland · Hirabayashi v. United States · Weiler v. United States · United States v. Marchisio · Paternostro 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We do not understand Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 787-791, 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 2058-2061, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 , 712-713 (1969), to pass upon the continuing validity of the ‘concurrent sentence’ rule as a rule of judicial convenience, see 395 U.S. at 791 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , but simply read that case as holding that the rule presents no jurisdictional proscription to appellate consideration of a concurrent sentence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Did you ever tell anybody that you would . . . let them work more than eight hours and just pay them straight time?”
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.