United States v. Mahler’s Empirical Analysis
579 F.2d 730 · 1978
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably United States v. Parodi (1983), United States v. Moore (1990)
36 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 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 Bates v. State Bar · Texas v. Louisiana · Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Ohio v. Gallagher · National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Federal Power Commission
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although convictions .over ten years old generally do not have much probative value, there may be exceptional circumstances under which the conviction substantially bears on the credibility of the witness_ It is intended that convictions over 10 years old will be admitted very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances. The rules provide that the decision be supported by specific facts and circumstances thus requiring the court to make specific findings on the record as to the particular facts and circumstances it has considered in determining that the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial impact.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hackney · State v. Ennis“the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, we believe that the language of the Rule clearly suggests such an on-the-record determination. The decision to admit such evidence must be “supported by specific facts and circumstances.” If this wording did not contemplate an on-the-record finding by the district judge, it could simply be stricken from the Rule with no linguistic or syntactical harm to the rest of the sentence. The position espoused by the Government would make the language mere surplusage, totally devoid of meaning.”
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.