United States v. Whitehead’s Empirical Analysis
539 F.2d 1023 · 1976
Citation profile
30 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably United States v. Porter (1987), United States v. Russell (1983)
30 federal appellate ·
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 Stern v. Board of Levee Commissioners · Infelice v. United States · McElroy v. United States · King v. United States · Ingram 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Joinder of Offenses. Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both, are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]here the only nexus between two defendants joined for trial is their participation in similar offenses, on different dates, with a common third defendant, the'same transaction' or 'series of transactions' test of Rule 8(b) is not satisfied and joinder is impermissible.”
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.