United States v. James’s Empirical Analysis
495 F.2d 434 · 1974
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently July 1994 · most notably United States v. DeSimone (1981), United States v. Ross (1975)
31 federal appellate · 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Cruz v. Hauck · Parham v. Cortese · Corallo v. United States · Brewer 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our distaste for the government's conduct does not, however, warrant a reversal of the case at bar. We have previously held that 'an error in administering the discovery rules is not reversible absent a showing that the error was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant.' United States v. Saitta, 443 F.2d 830, 831 (5th Cir., 1971), cert. den., 404 U.S. 938, 92 S.Ct. 269, 30 L.Ed.2d 250; United States v. DeSimone, 452 F.2d 554 , 557 (5th Cir., 1971); Accord United States v. Dowdy, 455 F.2d 1253 , 1255 (10th Cir., 1972); United States v. Cole, 453 F.2d 902 , 904 (8th Cir., 1972); United States v. Allsenberrie, 424 F.2d 1209 , 1215 (7th Cir., 1970). See also Pierce v. United States, 414 F.2d 163 , 169 (5th Cir., 1969), cert. den., 396 U.S. 960, 90 S.Ct. 435, 24 L.Ed.2d 425. A thorough review of the record in this case leaves us convinced that the prejudice, if any, flowing from the government's failure to produce the tapes until the time of trial was insubstantial.”
2 later decisions 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.