United States v. Computer Sciences Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 2017
8 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Ashe v. Swenson · Brown v. Ohio · Taylor v. Louisiana · Duren v. Missouri
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An indictment that involves essential elements of facts and law which have been tried and decided in an earlier case should be dismissed. Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). In ruling on such a motion, the court must determine exactly what was decided at the earlier trial. United States v. Davis, 369 F.2d 775, 777 (4th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 909 , 87 S.Ct. 858 , 17 L.Ed.2d 783 (1967). It is the burden of the moving party to demonstrate that the issue they urge is foreclosed logically constituted the basis of the earlier jury verdict. Id. “Only those issues necessarily determined by the first jury are conclusive in a second trial.” Id However, “the inquiry ‘must be set in a practical frame and viewed with an eye to all the circumstances of the proceedings.’ ” United States v. Davis, 460 F.2d 792, 796 (4th Cir. 1972) (quoting Ashe, 397 U.S. at 444 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It is the policy of the United States that all litigants in federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes. It is further the policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts of the United States, and shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The NTS contract is not “clear-cut,” “precise,” or comprised of “words of common understanding.” At this stage of the proceedings, it is impossible for the court to make a determination of what is and is not reasonable under the complex and technical NTS contract. The Race decision does not compel a district court to conduct a lengthy pretrial hearing to determine the meaning of a complex, highly technical contract where the identical issues will have to be put before the jury again if the matter is tried.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.