Donald v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
445 F.2d 601 · 1971
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably United States v. Blue Sea Line (1977), State v. Smith (2005)
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 19 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. § 1738
Relies on Beazell v. State of Ohio Chatfield · Thompson v. State of Utah · Gibson v. State of Mississippi · Duncan v. Missouri · Gurleski 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Acts of the legislature of any State, ... of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, ... thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, ... or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States ... by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form. Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States ... as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, ... from which they are taken.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“28 U.S.C. § 1738 ... was enacted to implement the full, faith, and credit clause of the United States Constitution by providing a way of exemplifying the records of judicial proceedings held in one state so that such records would be admissible in later judicial proceedings held in another state. Thus, this statute merely means full, faith, and credit must be given if certain requirements are met. However, evidence of judicial proceedings may be admissible if less is shown than the statute requires when it conforms to the rules of evidence of the state where the trial is being held.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“at the time he enters his plea in open court”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Toney v. State · Postell v. State
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.