United States v. Mosca’s Empirical Analysis
475 F.2d 1052 · 1973
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1071 · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 2111
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Harrington v. California · Hoffa v. United States
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Thus, while we believe that such tactics are beneath the high standards of professional conduct expected of government counsel, we do not find such tactics to be so condemnable as to warrant automatic reversal. Prejudice to appellants must be considered. Finding none, we hold that no substantial right of appellants has been infringed.” (Italics supplied.)”
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.