United States v. Check’s Empirical Analysis
582 F.2d 668 · 1978
Citation profile
93 federal appellate · 4 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably United States v. Sampol (1980), United States v. Wong (1994)
93 federal appellate · 4 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Texas v. Louisiana · Taylor v. Kentucky
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.
““were indeed hearsay, for that testimony was a transparent attempt to incorporate into the officer’s testimony information supplied by the informant who did not testify at trial. Such a device is improper and cannot miraculously transform inadmissible hearsay into admissible evidence.” 582 F.2d at 679 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a transparent conduit for the introduction of inadmissible hearsay information ...”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“made as soon as the ground of it is known, or reasonably should have been known to the objector.”
3 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.