Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 521 F.2d 565 - United States v. Canniff

United States v. Canniff’s Empirical Analysis

521 F.2d 565 · 1975

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
9
states following
August 2014
most recently cited

53 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably United States v. Bagaric (1983), United States v. Newton (2004)

53 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

33019751980199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from New York Northern District Court)

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 5010 · 18 U.S.C. § 5031 · 18 U.S.C. § 5032 · 18 U.S.C. § 5038 · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Barker v. Wingo · Gault · Harris v. New York

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.

  1. “[e]vidence of juvenile adjudications is generally not admissible under this rule”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Although defendants and their counsel are allowed considerable leeway in delaying their demand for a speedy trial before the trial court, the issue must be raised at some point. A complete failure to raise it in the trial court, as was the' case here, precludes our consideration of the issue on appeal, for the simple reason that there is nothing to review. There is no decision of the district court weighing the factors considered and no record from which we could independently evaluate the government’s conduct. [Citations and footnote omitted.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “did not constitute material required to be produced by the government”
    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.