United States v. Curtis’s Empirical Analysis
523 F.2d 1134 · 1975
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably United States v. Mitchell (2007), United States v. Canady (1997)
20 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
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 Hill v. United States · Ohio v. Kentucky · Lewis v. United States · Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board · United States v. Behrens
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the state has an independent interest in requiring a public sentencing in order to assure the appearance of justice.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Following the examination provided for in section 4252, if the court determines that an eligible offender is an addict and is likely to be rehabilitated through treatment, it shall commit him to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment under this chapter, except that no offender shall be committed under this chapter if the Attorney General certifies that adequate facilities or personnel for treatment are unavailable. Such commitment shall be for an indeterminate period of time not to exceed ten years, but in no event shall it exceed the maximum sentence that could otherwise have been imposed. (b) If, following the examination provided for in section 4252, the court determines that an eligible offender is not an addict, or is an addict not likely to be rehabilitated through treatment, it shall impose such other sentence as may be authorized or required by law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since the court had no discretion to sentence to NARA for a term less than 10 years, her reappearance was purposeless.”
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.