United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
562 F.2d 789 · 1977
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 18 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably United States v. Bledsoe (1982), United States v. Moore (2011)
42 federal appellate · 18 district · 8 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 Rosado v. Wyman · Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange · Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Strachan Shipping Co. · Drew v. United States · United States v. Equitable Life Assurance Society
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]wo or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment of information 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. Such defendant may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Classic examples of such a benefit are when there is an overlapping of issues, as for example, when some defendants are charged with transporting stolen goods in interstate commerce and others are charged with receiving the goods, so stolen and transported, or when defendants are charged with conspiracy to conceal a crime that part of their number are charged with committing. Where, however, there are no presumptive benefits from joint proof of facts relevant to all the acts or transactions, there is no “series,” Rule 8(b) comes to an end, and joinder is impermissible.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“At the time of the Indictment, and throughout the period of the alleged conspiracy, she went by the name of Linda D. Medlar. For the sake of clarity, this Court will refer to her as Linda Medlar. . Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(a) governs the joinder of offenses, while Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) governs the joinder of defendants. Since this Circuit has held that Rule 8(b) provides the standard “for determining the permissibility of joinder of offenses when more than one defendant is involved.”
2 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.