United States v. Willis’s Empirical Analysis
583 F.2d 203 · 1978
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Proffitt v. Wainwright (1982), United States v. Lindstrom (1983)
33 federal appellate · 1 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. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Glasser v. United States · United States v. Marion · Rochin v. People of California · United States v. Lovasco · Mooney v. Holohan
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the accused must show that: (1) substantial prejudice resulted from the delay and (2) the delay was an intentional measure in order to gain a technical advantage.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A trial court's factual findings on a motion to suppress must be sustained unless shown to be clearly erroneous.”
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.