Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 532 F.2d 40 - United States v. Core

United States v. Core’s Empirical Analysis

532 F.2d 40 · 1976

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
4
states following
August 2010
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 2010

12 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

10019761980199020002010decided

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 Green v. United States · United States v. Van Drunen

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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure] 32(a)(1) does not specifically mention probation revocation hearings but only requires the right of allocation be given before imposing sentence. We interpret the rule to mean that allocution is required only before imposing the original sentence. ... However, we believe the better practice would be for the trial court to personally address the defendant and permit him to speak regardless of whether it is at the time of original sentencing, at a hearing on a motion to reduce a sentence previously imposed, or, as in this case, at a revocation of probation proceeding.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"Sentence shall be imposed without unreasonable delay. Before imposing sentence the court shall afford counsel an opportunity to speak on behalf of the defendant and shall address the defendant personally and ask him if he wishes to make a statement in his own behalf and to present any information in mitigation of punishment. The attorney for the government shall have an equivalent opportunity to speak to the court.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “does not specifically mention probation revocation hearings but only requires the right of allocution be given before imposing sentence. We interpret the rule to mean that allocution is required only before imposing the original sentence....”
    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.