Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 576 F.2d 46 - United States v. Jackson

United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

576 F.2d 46 · 1978

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
4
states following
October 2012
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably United States v. Martino (1981), United States v. Faymore (1984)

55 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

43019781980199020002010decided

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. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 845

Relies on Glasser v. United States · Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Brady v. United States · United States v. Peltier

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

  1. “* * * psychiatric opinions as to a witness’ reliability in distinguishing truth from fantasy is inadmissible for impeachment purposes, for it invades the jury’s province to make credibility determinations.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “* * * a court-ordered medical examination is an infringement on a witness’ privacy, and this factor must be taken into account by the district court. As the district judge said in the instant case: Such an examination may seriously impinge on a witness’ right to privacy, very high on any scale of balancing rights. The examination itself could serve as a tool of harassment, and the likelihood of an examination could deter witnesses from coming forward, producing a chilling effect on crime detection.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(a) Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally-- "(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance....”
    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.