United States v. Cumberbatch’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 2008
4 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 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3163 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Ashe v. Swenson · United States v. Marion · United States v. Ewell · United States v. Finkelstein
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The defendant’s . . . argument is premised on the “same transaction” test in the double jeopardy area. . . .In Ashe , the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel was included in the fifth amendment’s guarantee against double jeopardy. [T]he Court[] did not adopt the “same transaction” test, and, thus, it has not been held to be part of the collateral estoppel element of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Moreover, the collateral estoppel argument is wholly inapplicable to this case. As the Court in Ashe stated, collateral estoppel bars the relitigation by the same parties of an issue of ultimate fact which has been determined by a valid and final judgment. No such fact has been litigated in the present case, and, thus, the collateral estoppel rule does not apply.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Crawford
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.