United States v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis
576 F.2d 1267 · 1978
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably United States v. Duggan (1984), United States v. King (1980)
30 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 Faretta v. California · United States v. Calandra · Harrington v. California · United States v. Pomponio · United States v. Bishop
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]f there -is a failure to give notice when 'required by subdivision (b) of this rule or to submit to an examination when ordered under subdivision (c) of this rule, the court may exclude the testimony of any expert witness offered by the defendant on the issue of his mental state.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(b) . . . If a defendant intends to introduce expert testimony relating to a mental disease, defect, or other condition bearing upon the issue of whether he had the mental state required for the offense charged, he shall, within the time provided for the filing of pretrial motions or at such later time as the court may direct, notify the attorney for the government in writing of such intention . . . (emphasis supplied). (c) . . . (d) . . . If there is a failure to give notice when required by subdivision (b) of this rule . . . the court may exclude the testimony of any expert witness offered by the defendant on the issue of his mental state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““I cannot permit Mr. Anderson, who is not an attorney admitted to practice in this court to represent you or to speak for you. He can speak to you, he can speak with you, but cannot speak for you. That simply means if you want to talk with him, that is your right, and I will not interfere with that. As far as any speaking that is done, you must do that.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.