United States v. Eucker’s Empirical Analysis
532 F.2d 249 · 1976
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably United States v. Xheka (1983), State v. Copple (1987)
28 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 15 U.S.C. § 783 · 15 U.S.C. § 78B (§ 2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78F (§ 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78H (§ 8 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78Q (§ 17 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on United States v. Marion · Davis v. Alaska · Ohio v. Kentucky · Acosta v. United States · Forman 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““disinclined to reduce the period of limitations prescribed by Congress in the absence of some proof that the Governhient utilized the delay as ‘an intentional device to gain tactical advantage over the accused’ and that defendant was prejudiced thereby. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 324 , 92 S.Ct. 455, 465 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468, 481 (1971),””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if an indictment properly charges an offense, it is sufficient, even though an inapposite statute is referred to therein.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Assistant United States Attorney who represented the Government on the trial promised Sloan that if he pleaded guilty and cooperated in the preparation and presentation of the case against Anderson, the Government would `go to bat' for him. Thereafter, Sloan pleaded guilty. However, his cooperation consisted of presenting the prosecution with a version of the facts in which he attempted to completely exculpate himself from any wrongdoing. Under these circumstances the Government was unwilling to vouch for his credibility and did not call him as a witness. The prosecutor also did not `go to bat' for him, because he did not consider Sloan's willingness to testify falsely to be cooperation.”
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.