United States v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
525 F.2d 970 · 1976
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 2006
5 federal appellate ·
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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 5005
Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Dorszynski v. United States · United States v. Hill · United States v. Wells
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sentence of law and judgment of the Court— David Lee Hall be and he is hereby committed to the custody of the Attorney General or lawfully authorized representative for confinement for a period of five years or until he is sooner discharged by due process of law and in imposing sentence the Court has carefully considered the Youth Act but has rejected its application as being not indicated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Tjiteral compliance with the Act can be satisfied by any expression that makes clear the sentencing judge considered the alternative of sentencing under the Act and decided that the youth offender would not derive benefit from treatment under the Act.”
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.