Lindhorst v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
585 F.2d 361 · 1978
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Baumann v. United States (1982), Barrett v. United States (1992)
39 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · MacHibroda v. United States · Walker v. Johnston · Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks · International Ass'n of Machinists v. Duckworth
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * (1) the evidence must be in fact newly discovered, that is, discovered since the trial; (2) facts must be alleged from which the court may infer diligence on the part of the movant; (3) the evidence relied upon must not be merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) it must be material to the issues involved, and (5) it must be of such nature that, on a new trial, the newly discovered evidence would probably produce an acquittal."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While the general rule is that a hearing is necessary prior to the disposition of all § 2255 motions presenting factual issues (citations omitted), this requirement is subject to the statutory qualification that the files and records of the case may be sufficient alone to dispose of the motion where they ‘conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.’ ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The district judge cannot credit the recanting witnesses' trial testimony and discredit their affidavits without affording appellant an opportunity to approve the allegations." Id. at 365 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Keser v. State · Bond v. Procunier
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.