Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 462 F.2d 243 - McGee v. United States

McGee v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

462 F.2d 243 · 1972

Citation profile

129
cited by 129 later decisions
7
states following
April 2015
most recently cited

90 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably Commonwealth v. Riggins (1977), Farrow v. United States (1978)

90 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 state decisions

88019721980199020002010decided

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. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 50 U.S.C. § 3801

Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · North Carolina v. Pearce · Benton v. Maryland · Williams v. People of State of New York · United States v. Tucker

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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Here it is impossible to determine from the judge’s remarks in imposing sentence . whether he was at least in part influenced by the [vacated] conviction under count 1 in setting sentence on counts 2 through 4. However, certain factors indicate that this is quite probable. s}; * * * * * [Accordingly], we have determined that it is not improbable that the initial sentencing process with respect to the valid counts was to some extent affected by the conviction on the far more serious count 1, which was illegally brought. To purge this possible taint after the fact . . the order is vacated and the cause remanded.” McGee v. United States, supra, at 462 F.2d 245 -6, 247.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he trial judge's original sentencing determination with respect to Count 2 through 4 could have been influenced by [defendant] appellant's conviction under Count 1--just as evidence of a prior conviction might influence a sentencing judge on a subsequent one.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Courts, which have so rightly imposed a requirement of the statement of reasons on local draft boards . and on administrative agencies . . . are not exempt from this duty in appropriate circumstances.” (citations omitted)”
    2 later decisions 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.