United States v. Singleton’s Empirical Analysis
532 F.2d 199 · 1976
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably State v. Adams (1980), United States v. Roldan-Zapata (1990)
32 federal appellate · 3 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. § 1708
Relies on Holland v. United States · Jones v. Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc. · Acosta v. United States · Eason v. Dandridge · Zatsky v. United States
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Generally, this Court has held that the failure to charge accurately each and every element of the offense may be plain error cognizable on appeal without an objection or request for charge having been made below. United States v. Na tale. 526 F.2d 1160 (2 Cir. 1975); United States v. Howard. 506 F.2d 1131 (2 Cir. 1974); United States v. Fields. 466 F.2d 119 (2 Cir. 1972). Those cases, however, do not establish a per se rule that every charge which Tails separately and specifically to state each element will irreparably confuse the jury and deny the defendant his “substantial rights” to a fair trial and to have the jury pass upon each issue.”
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.