Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 511 A2D 399 - Arnold v. United States

Arnold v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
2
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Nixon v. United States (1999), Harris v. United States (1992)

54 state decisions

1601986199020002010decided

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

Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Griffin v. California · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Douglas v. Alabama · Frazier v. Cupp

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

  1. ““unless (1) the evidence as to each offense is separate and distinct, and thus unlikely to be amalgamated in the jury’s mind into a single inculpatory mass, or (2) the evidence of each of the joined crimes would be admissible at the separate trial of the others.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[bjefore a party may argue an adverse inference as to an absent witness, counsel must seek permission from the court, and the court must determine (1) that the witness in question is peculiarly available to the party against whom the inference is sought, and (2) that the witness’ testimony would have elucidated the transaction at issue.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on [two] or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.” This rule is”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.