United States v. Weaver’s Empirical Analysis
565 F.2d 129 · 1977
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2012 · most notably United States v. Dennis (1980), United States v. Hernandez-Miranda (1979)
27 federal appellate · 15 state decisions — followed in 10 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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974)
Relies on Bruton v. United States · United States v. Marion · United States v. Lovasco · Dutton v. Evans · United States v. Ewell
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“.“As * * * stated * * * the double jeopardy clause generally would not stand in the way of reprosecution where the defendant has requested a mistrial. Only in limited circumstances, where the judicial or prosecutorial error that prompts the defendant’s motion is intended to provoke the motion or is otherwise motivated by bad faith or undertaken to harass or prejudice the defendant, does the double jeopardy clause bar retrial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Peterson v. State“(j)(l) If the attorney for the Government knows that a person charged with an offense is serving a term of imprisonment in any penal institution, he shall promptly— (A) undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial; or (B) cause a detainer to be filed with the person having custody of the prisoner and request him to so advise the prisoner and to advise the prisoner of his right to demand trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Peterson v. State
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.