United States v. Kennedy’s Empirical Analysis
578 F.2d 196 · 1978
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 1994
10 federal appellate · 3 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 O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden · Smith v. Crouse · Fisher v. United States · Fisher v. United States · Etchieson v. Texas
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'There is no requirement that the government rebut expert testimony with its own expert. . . . The same result may instead be accomplished by presenting lay witnesses or other evidence, or by cross-examination designed to weaken the defense expert's credibility.' United States v. Kennedy , 578 F.2d 196 , (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1049 , 99 S.Ct. 727 , 58 L.Ed.2d 709 (1978). See also, United States v. Esle , 743 F.2d 1465 , 1474 (11th Cir. 1984) ('Where . . . the basis of the expert's opinion has been thoroughly impeached, the court, as fact finder, is thus plainly authorized to reject the opinion entirely').”
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.