Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 567 F.2d 849 - United States v. Martin

United States v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis

567 F.2d 849 · 1977

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
December 1999
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1999 · most notably United States v. Lane (1986), United States v. Bledsoe (1982)

41 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

390197719801990decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952

Relies on Glasser v. United States · United States v. Roselli · United States v. Perry · Metheany v. United States · The United States of America v. Hector G. Camacho, the United States of America v. Jose Dolores Raygoza

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

  1. “(b) Joinder of Defendants. Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or 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 defendants 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 majority
  2. “satisfactory showing ... that the presence of the witness is necessary to an adequate defense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]o establish a conspiracy, the government need not prove the existence of a formal agreement. Rather, an agreement may be inferred from the acts of the parties and other circumstantial evidence indicating concert of action for accomplishment of a common purpose.”
    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.