United States v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
453 F.2d 141 · 1971
Citation profile
63 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently September 2004 · most notably United States v. Campanale (1975), United States v. Kaplan (1977)
63 federal appellate ·
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 In re Disbarment of Gately · First National Bank v. Dickinson · United States v. Nelson · Arellanes v. United States · Byrd v. Wainwright
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“mere presence or proximity to contraband in an automobile, without more, is insufficient to establish the guilt of a passenger for transporting.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“mere suspicion or speculation cannot be the basis for the creation of logical inferences.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The granting or denial of a severance under Rule 14, Fed.R.Crim.P., is a matter within the trial court’s discretion and reversal is appropriate only if abuse of that discretion has been shown, [cases cited]. “The test is whether a joint trial was so prejudicial to a defendant as to require the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion in only one way, that is, by ordering a separate trial, [cases cited]. “The burden of demonstrating prejudice is a difficult one, and the ruling of the trial judge will rarely be disturbed on review, [authorities cited]. The defendant must show more than the fact that a separate trial might offer him a better chance of acquittal, [case cited]. “The ultimate question is whether under all the circumstances of the particular case, as a practical matter, it is within the capacity of the jurors to follow the court’s admonitory instructions and accordingly to collate and appraise the independent evidence against each defendant solely upon that defendant’s own acts, statements and conduct, [cases cited].””
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.