United States v. Samson’s Empirical Analysis
533 F.2d 721 · 1976
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably United States v. Savoca (1985), United States v. Fortes (1980)
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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
Relies on In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions · Doyle v. Ohio · United States v. Craven · United States v. Lucarz · United States v. Thoresen
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.
““By its normal meaning a defendant has been ‘convicted by a court’ even though the conviction may sometime be reversed. Whether only a final conviction is meant in the particular instance is a matter of overall intent. If the disability imposed by the statute is sufficiently serious to the defendant, it might be appropriate to take the more restricted meaning, [citations omitted.] But where the consequences of the deprivation are relatively slight compared with the gravity of the public interest sought to be protected, we would give ‘convicted by a court’ its normal meaning.” Id., at 722.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.