Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 595 F.2d 1321 - United States v. McPartlin

United States v. McPartlin’s Empirical Analysis

595 F.2d 1321 · 1979

Citation profile

315
cited by 315 later decisions
23
states following
August 2025
most recently cited

181 federal appellate · 11 district · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 315 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably Petzoldt v. Commissioner (1989), Eisenberg v. Gagnon (1985)

181 federal appellate · 11 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 23 states

2070197919801990200020102020decided

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. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Glasser v. United States · United States v. Agurs · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Stirone v. United States

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

  1. “entitled to the attorney-client privilege, because his [the defendant's] statements were made in confidence to an attorney for a co-defendant for a common purpose related to both defenses [emphasis added].”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “evidence of prior similar crimes or acts [is] admissible if such acts have a 'substantial relevance' to an issue other than a general criminal character and propensity to commit crime.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he degree of reliability necessary for admission is greatly reduced where, as here, the declarant is testifying and is available for cross-examination, thereby satisfying the central concern of the hearsay rule.”
    2 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.