United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
508 F.2d 1001 · 1975
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 3 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2014 · most notably United States v. Loud Hawk (1986), United States v. Harris (1976)
47 federal appellate · 3 district · 11 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 1708 · 18 U.S.C. § 3432 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 18 U.S.C. § 495
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Ewell · Ohio v. Kentucky · Moore v. Arizona · Strunk 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * [The rules] do not in any manner suggest that the court does not possess the authority to order that such a [witness] list be disclosed. * * * [T]he courts that have considered the issue before us have recognized that the district court possesses, in the exercise of its inherent power to promote the proper administration of criminal justice, the authority to require the Government to disclose its list of witnesses to be called at trial. * * *”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The speedy trial guarantee recognizes that a prolonged delay may subject the accused to an emotional stress that can be presumed to result in the ordinary person from uncertainties in the prospect of facing public trial or of receiving a sentence longer than, or consecutive to, the one he is presently serving — uncertainties that a prompt trial removes.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n calculating the length of delay ... the period of delay attributable to the review of an order appealable under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3731 [the statute that permits the government to take interlocutory appeals in federal cases] should not be considered.”
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.