Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 488 F.2d 175 - United States v. Ortiz

United States v. Ortiz’s Empirical Analysis

488 F.2d 175 · 1973

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
August 1995
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 1995 · most notably United States v. Busic (1978), United States v. Monroe (1977)

26 federal appellate · 1 district ·

200197319801990decided

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. § 4244 · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 7237

Relies on Glasser v. United States · Eisenstadt v. Baker · Brewer v. United States · Wade v. United States · United States v. Harper

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

  1. “The psychiatric testimony, presented by both sides, was in conflict. The jury could properly weigh the opinions of both psychiatrists and resolve that conflict. In reviewing their determination, we must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the government. Giasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 , 80, 62 S.Ct. 457 , 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). This standard of review extends to the issue of sanity and the credibility of the experts. United States v. Handy, 454 F.2d 885 , 888 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 409 U.S. 846 , 93 S.Ct. 49 , 34 L.Ed.2d 86 (1972). In addition to the experts, the jury also heard lay witnesses who, because they had observed [the defendant] during the execution of the crime, provided meaningful testimony that the jury could consider. . We hold'that this evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.”
    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.