United States v. Robin’s Empirical Analysis
553 F.2d 8 · 1977
Citation profile
166 federal appellate · 5 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 257 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably United States v. Torres (1990), Haines v. Liggett Group Inc. (1992)
166 federal appellate · 5 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 18 U.S.C. § 5005 · 28 U.S.C. § 144 · 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on United States v. Tucker · Lascaris v. Shirley · Gregg v. United States · Wingo v. Wedding · Morningside Renewal Council, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission
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 257 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the original judge would reasonably be expected upon remand to have substantial difficulty in putting out of his or her mind previously-expressed views or findings determined to be erroneous or based on evidence that must be rejected, (2) whether reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice, and (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving the appearance of fairness.”
51 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“both for the judge's sake and the appearance of justice,”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the rare case where a judge has repeatedly adhered to an erroneous view after the error is called to his attention, reassignment to another judge may be advisable in order to avoid “an exercise in futility [in which] the Court is merely marching up the hill only to march right down again.””
5 later decisions 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.