United States v. Escobedo’s Empirical Analysis
430 F.2d 14 · 1970
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably United States v. Smith (1976), United States v. Jones (1971)
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 Ashe v. Swenson · Leary v. United States · O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden · Sweet v. United States · Minor 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Defendant also asks this court to review the trial court’s refusal to strike the words ‘Danny Escobedo’ from the indictment. Although defendant labels ‘Danny Escobedo’ as an ‘alias,’ we think that ‘Danny’ is more properly labeled a nickname for defendant’s true name. In light of testimony by witnesses and by defendant himself that he was referred to by others as ‘Danny,’ the use of the nickname further identified defendant and did not constitute prejudicial error. Even if ‘Danny’ is considered an alias, we find no harmful effect in this case. See United States v. Melekh, 193 F.Supp. 586 (N.D.Ill.1961), citing United States v. Solowitz, 99 F.2d 714 (7th Cir. 1938).””
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.