Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 582 F.2d 224 - United States v. Quinto

United States v. Quinto’s Empirical Analysis

582 F.2d 224 · 1978

Citation profile

140
cited by 140 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

83 federal appellate · 1 district · 36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 140 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Tome v. United States (1995), United States v. Parodi (1983)

83 federal appellate · 1 district · 36 state decisions — followed in 20 states

770197819801990200020102020decided

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 Kotteakos v. United States · Grunewald v. United States · Rodriguez v. United States · Bruce v. United States · United States v. Oates

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

  1. “(1) Prior statement by witness.—The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is . . .”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'in which rehabilitation through consistency would ... have been allowed,' " before the adoption of the Rule. Id. at 233, quoting 4 WEINSTEIN'S EVIDENCE, p 801(d)(1)(B), at 801-100. According to the Second Circuit's analysis, this required that "the statements were made prior to the time the supposed motive to falsify arose.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he jury thus had before it a neat condensation of the government's whole case against the defendant. The government's witnesses in effect accompanied the jury into the jury room. In these circumstances we cannot say that the error did not influence the jury, to the defendant's detriment, or had but very slight effect.”
    5 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.