United States v. Comiskey’s Empirical Analysis
460 F.2d 1293 · 1972
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably In re Grand Jury Investigation (1979), United States v. Springer (1972)
28 federal appellate · 3 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. § 3731
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · United States v. Jorn · Will v. United States · United States v. Sisson · Fuentes v. Shevin
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.
“Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731, the United States Attorney has certified that this appeal 'is not taken for the purpose of delay and that the evidence is a substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding.' The district court having received this certification, we are not required by section 3731 to evaluate independently the substantiality or the materiality of the contested material.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“is not taken for the purpose of delay and that the evidence is a substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The form of the certification is not prescribed in the statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.