Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 432 F.2d 1119 - United States v. Daddano

United States v. Daddano’s Empirical Analysis

432 F.2d 1119 · 1970

Citation profile

90
cited by 90 later decisions
8
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

68 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably United States v. Caldwell (1974), United States v. Peters (1986)

68 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 state decisions

67019701980199020002010decided

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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 4

Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Costello v. United States · Alford v. United States · Smith v. Illinois · Marietta Norton v. The Discipline Committee of East Tennessee State University

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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The ultimate question is whether it is possible to select a fair and impartial jury, and in most situations the voir dire examination adequately supplies the facts upon which to base that determination.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The fifth amendment requirement of indictment by a grand jury is not violated where ‘all the evidence before the grand jury was in the nature of “hearsay”.’ ” [Quoting from Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 , 76 S.Ct. 406 , 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956).]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “even if each set of events (a Hobbs Act violation and subsequent perjurious statement to a grand jury) be deemed a separate transaction, we think the relationship is close enough that they may be deemed a 'series' under Rule 8(b)”
    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.