United States v. Frankenthal’s Empirical Analysis
582 F.2d 1102 · 1978
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2022 · most notably United States v. Abel (1984), United States v. Paiva (1989)
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Davis v. Alaska · Eisenstadt v. Baker · District of Columbia v. Clawans · United States v. Papia
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.
“factual knowledge that was highly pertinent to the jury's task, and he was the only possible source of that knowledge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Frankenthal has thus taken the position that she should have been given the benefit of Berk's testimony without having his credibility attacked on the basis of facts well known to her before she called Berk to testify. This consideration is not irrelevant in deciding whether any prejudice created was 'unfair' within the meaning of Rule 403.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... the possibility that prestige, dignity, and authority may have somehow been imparted to the prosecution’s case by the judge's appearance on its behalf cannot be lightly dismissed....,’’ and that the judge's testimony”
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.