Herring v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
424 F.3d 384 · 2005
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Arar v. Ashcroft (2009), United States v. Yeje-Cabrera (2005)
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on United States v. Reynolds · Central Intelligence Agency v. Sims · Castro-Jimenez v. United States · Rozier v. Ford Motor Co. · Pfizer, Inc. v. International Rectifier Corp.
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(quoting In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Antibiotic Antitrust Actions, 538 F.2d 180 , 195 (8th Cir. 1976))); Geo. P. Reintjes Co. v. Riley Stoker Corp., 71 F.3d 44 , 48 (1st Cir. 1995) (stating that the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Were we to proceed otherwise, the following discussion would not have been necessary to affirm the judgment of the District Court 3 Even if we concluded that the Air Force's claim of privilege could not be read to include concern about revealing the workings of the B-29, we would be obligated to consider whether certain information contained in the accident report actually revealed sensitive information about the mission and the electronic equipment involved. The accident report revealed, for example, that the project was being carried out by”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“See Geo. P. Reintjes, 71 F.3d at 49; Demjanjuk, 10 F.3d at 348; Lockwood v. Bowles, 46 F.R.D. 625, 632 (D.C.Cir.1969). These cases have noted, and we agree, that perjury by a witness is not enough to constitute fraud upon the court. See e.g., Geo. P. Reintjes Co., 71 F.3d at 49 (”
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.