Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 469 U.S. 45 - United States v. Abel

United States v. Abel’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

1,735
cited by 1,735 later decisions
25
cited 25 times by the Supreme Court
40
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

578 federal appellate · 117 district · 471 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,735 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997)

578 federal appellate · 117 district · 471 state decisions — followed in 40 states

584019841990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedUnited States v. Abel (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Davis v. Alaska · Alford v. United States · Palmer v. Hoffman · Brandenburg v. Ohio · Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc.

Cited together with Davis v. Alaska · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Brady v. State of Maryland · Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California

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 1,735 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Proof of bias is almost always relevant because the jury, as finder of fact and weigher of credibility, has historically been entitled to assess all evidence which might bear on the accuracy and truth of a witness' testimony.”
    52 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a] district court is accorded a wide discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence under the Federal Rules” and”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, ... or by considerations of ... needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    13 later decisions 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.