United States v. Potts’s Empirical Analysis
528 F.2d 883 · 1975
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently July 1999 · most notably 101 Wash. 2d 481 - State v. Gore (1984), 105 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Bergeron (1985)
47 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 842 · 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on United States v. Bass · Bouie v. City of Columbia · McBoyle v. United States · 10 Cal. 3d 910 - In Re Foss · United States v. Liles
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[although the expunction statute could determine the status of the conviction for purposes of state law, it could not ‘rewrite history’ for the purposes of ‘the administration of the federal criminal law or the interpretation of federal criminal statutes’.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense or crime of which he has been convicted,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Contrary to the view expressed in [United States v.] Hoctor, [ 487 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1973) 5 ] the statute does not operate absolutely to erase a conviction for all pur poses. True, the enacting clause does speak of the release of a defendant "from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense or crime of which he has been convicted." But the breadth of this remission is limited by a proviso in the statute which reads: "Provided, That in any subsequent prosecution, for any other offense, such prior conviction may be pleaded and proved, and shall have the same effect as if probation had not been granted, or the information or indictment dismissed." The Washington appellate courts, on several occasions when called upon to construe the statute, have noted the effect of the proviso upon a conviction and its use. Thus in Matsen v. Kaiser, 74 Wash.2d 231 , 443 P.2d 843 (1968), a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court of Washington, speaking of the benevolent public policy underlying the statute, were careful to qualify their broad statement by noting that "[t]he only exception to the statutory release of all penalties and disabilities attendant upon a conviction is found in the proviso, which is not applicable in the instant case." 74 Wash.2d at 237 , 443 P.2d at 847 (emphasis in original). And the dissenter added his comment that expunction effected only a '"partial erasure' because, as the majority points out, the guilty plea will count as a conviction in any ”
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.