Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 434 F.2d 7 - United States v. Leahey

United States v. Leahey’s Empirical Analysis

434 F.2d 7 · 1970

Citation profile

146
cited by 146 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

83 federal appellate · 23 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 146 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2015 · most notably United States v. Caceres (1979), Doe v. Hampton (1977)

83 federal appellate · 23 district · 9 state decisions

110019701980199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · McNabb v. United States · United States Accardi v. Shaughnessy · Cannon 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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““. . .we hold that the agency had a duty to conform to its procedure, that citizens have a right to rely on conformance, and that the courts must enforce both the right and duty.” (at page 11.)”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “. The crucial question is whether we must exclude this evidence so that agencies will be compelled to adhere to the standards of behavior that they have formally and purposely adopted in the light of the requirements .of the Constitution, even though these standards may go somewhat further than the Constitution requires.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[o]ur result would have been different if the IRS had violated a procedure designed to promote some other agency goal.”
    4 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.