Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 514 F.2d 175 - United States v. Wetzel

United States v. Wetzel’s Empirical Analysis

514 F.2d 175 · 1975

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
3
states following
May 2011
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably United States v. Flaherty (1981), United States v. Roman (1984)

24 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

16019751980199020002010decided

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. § 2317 · 18 U.S.C. § 3150 (Bail Reform Act of 1984)

Relies on Cataldo v. United States · Cass v. United States · United States v. Delay · United States v. Wilkinson · United States v. DePugh

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

  1. ““§ 3150. Penalties for failure to appear Whoever, having been released pursuant to this chapter, willfully fails to appear before any court or judicial officer as required, shall, subject to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, incur a forfeiture of any security which was given or pledged for his release, and, in addition, shall, (1) if he was released in connection with a charge of felony, or while awaiting sentence or pending appeal or certiorari after conviction of any offense, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both,____””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Under these circumstances, where the defendant did not stand on his motion for acquittal, but introduced evidence in defense, in determining the sufficiency of the evidence, the court of appeals can examine the evidence as a whole, including that offered by the defendant.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “circumstantial evidence is most likely to be the only evidence of subjective state of mind.”
    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.