United States v. Gooding’s Empirical Analysis
473 F.2d 425 · 1973
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Hamling v. United States (1974), United States v. Peskin (1975)
50 federal appellate · 6 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. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 1861 (Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Williams v. Florida · Rewis v. United States · Peters v. Kiff
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he fact that travel is motivated by two or more purposes, some of which lie outside the ambit of the Travel Act, will not preclude conviction under the Act if the requisite . . . intent is also present.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * * * * (2) specify whether the names of prospective jurors shall be selected from the voter registration lists or the lists of actual voters of the political subdivision. . . . (3) specify detailed procedures to be followed by the jury commission or clerk in selecting names from the sources specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection. These procedures shall be designed to ensure the random selection of a fair cross section of the persons residing in the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes. They shall ensure that names of persons residing in each of the counties, parishes, or similar political subdivisions within the judicial district or division are placed in a master jury wheel; and shall ensure that each county, parish, or similar political subdivision within the district or division is substantially proportionally represented in the master jury wheel for that judicial district, division, or combination of divisions. For the purposes of determining proportional representation in the master jury wheel, either the number of actual voters at the last general election in each county, parish, or similar political subdivision, or the number of registered voters if registration of voters is uniformly reguired throughout the district or division, may be used. ****** (9) specify the procedures to be followed by the clerk or jury commission in assigning persons whose names have been drawn from the qualified jury wheel to grand and petit jury panels”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Kuhn we approved as valid under the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1861 et seq., a five year interval for emptying and refilling the jury master wheel, the master list from which grand and petit jurors are drawn, and held a lag of one year and five months between the filling of the master wheel and the time of trial to be impervious to constitutional attack. In Pentado we held a three year lag between the filling of the master wheel and trial to be constitutionally acceptable. In Blair we held the District Clerk did not fail to comply with the Plan by not adding names to the master wheel on a continuing basis between the quadrennial emptying and refilling.”
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.