United States v. Ehrlichman’s Empirical Analysis
546 F.2d 910 · 1976
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 11 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably United States v. Haldeman (1976), United States v. North (1990)
57 federal appellate · 11 district · 26 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Katz v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Coolidge v. New Hampshire
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“and that the jury will unjustifiably infer that this conflict alone demonstrates that both are guilty.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he mere presence of hostility among defendants, ... or the desire of one to exculpate himself by inculpating another are insufficient grounds to require separate trials....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““Although some of the language in Screws can be read more broadly, its holding essentially sets forth two requirements for a finding of ‘specific intent’ under section 242. The first is a purely legal determination. Is the . . . right at issue clearly delineated and plainly applicable under the circumstances of the case? If the trial judge concludes that it is, then the jury must make the second, factual, determination. Did the defendant commit the act in question with the particular purpose of depriving the victim of his enjoyment of the interests protected by that . . . right? If both requirements are met, even if the defendant did not in fact recognize the [unlawfulness] of his act, he will be adjudged as a matter of law to have acted ‘willfully’ — i.e., ‘in reckless disregard of constitutional [or statutory] prohibitions or guarantees.’” We think this definition of the mental element required for the Federal crime is reasonable, and we consider it applicable to the intent element set forth in G. L. c. 265, § 37. We shall apply these considerations to the evidence in this case in part 2 of this opinion.”
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.