United States v. King’s Empirical Analysis
482 F.2d 768 · 1973
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2009 · most notably Pulliam v. Allen (1984), United States v. Haldeman (1976)
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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. § 3041 · 18 U.S.C. § 3060 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Costello v. United States · Coleman v. Alabama · Stack v. Boyle · Di Bella 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the federal courts, when the purpose of mandamus is to secure a ruling on the intrinsic merits of a judicial act, the judge need not—and desirably should not—be named as an active party, but at most only as a nominal party with no real interest in the outcome.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This Act provides mandatorily, with exceptions later to be considered, for ‘a preliminary [hearing] ... to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the arrested person has committed it.’ The reason the Act indulges the preliminary hearing no independ ent discovery role is evident from its legislative history. During hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, witnesses urged ‘that preliminary examination afforded a necessary and useful medium for defense counsel to obtain discovery of the prosecution’s evidence.’ The Committee, however, was ‘of the opinion that the problem of discovery should be treated separately from that of the preliminary hearing.’ Although the need for expanded pretrial discovery procedures was recognized, the Committee felt that The preliminary hearing does not present an ideal opportunity for discovery. It is designed for another purpose; namely, that of determining whether there is probable cause to justify further proceedings against an arrested person. Thus, the degree of discovery obtained in a preliminary hearing will vary depending upon how much evidence the presiding judicial officer thinks is necessary to establish probable cause in a particular case. This may be quite a bit, or it may be very little, but in either event it need not be all the evidence within the possession of the Government that should be subject to discovery. The Committee accordingly concluded ‘that discover”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Florence
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.