United States v. Super’s Empirical Analysis
492 F.2d 319 · 1974
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently October 1995 · most notably United States v. Tramunti (1975), United States v. Fuentes (1977)
25 federal appellate · 2 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Roviaro v. United States · United Gas Improvement Co. v. Continental Oil Co. · Beck v. United States · Marietta Norton v. The Discipline Committee of East Tennessee State University · Holt v. Alleghany Corp.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Informants in drug cases are not Brahmins, nor are they noted for long-term occupancy of well-tended premises. Their disappearance, voluntary or otherwise, is not extraordinary. The fact that a police officer knew that Lombardi was an habitue of Suffolk County bars or that he might be in Florida is hardly indicative that the Government in fact could find him. In any event, as we have stated, defendant’s trial counsel did not show any real interest in finding him, but rather were satisfied to exploit his absence to the jury. There is no claim here that Lombardi would have been called as a witness for the appellants. There is no suggestion that Lombardi entrapped the defendants and that his evidence was therefore crucial to the establishment of a defense. . . .All that the record indicates is that counsel for the defendants wanted to interview Lombardi to see if he might be suitable as a witness. In sum, we have no reason to believe that his evidence would have been anything but cumulative.” United States v. Super et al., 492 F.2d 319 (2d Cir. 1974).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““did not seek to establish that the Government had failed to use reasonable diligence in its search for Lombardi. It did not seek to question the Government out of the presence of the jury in an effort to determine what search had been made or what search might be productive if a continuance were granted.””
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.