Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 558 F.2d 697 - United States v. Cerilli

United States v. Cerilli’s Empirical Analysis

558 F.2d 697 · 1977

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
October 2014
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2014 · most notably United States v. MacDonald (1978), United States v. Stricklin (1979)

25 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

16019771980199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Abney v. United States · United States v. Dinitz · Lee v. United States · United States v. Ragano

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

  1. “A superseding indictment may be returned at any time before a trial on the merits. Indeed, two indictments may be outstanding at the same time for the same offense if jeopardy has not attached to the first indictment. Since the original indictment apparently was never dismissed, there are technically two pending indictments against [the defendant], and it appears that the government may select one of them with which to proceed to trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Although it is difficult to discern their precise contentions, the defendants, in effect, maintain that, since the original indictment has not yet been formally dismissed, and because jeopardy had attached in the proceedings under that indictment, any prosecution under the subsequent indictment would expose them to double jeopardy. We cannot, however, adopt the position advanced by the defendants.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Although there are claims that the prosecution has engaged in various improprieties, the fact remains that the underlying source of the mistrial was not tainted by any overreaching, prosecutorial or otherwise.”
    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.