Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 599 F.2d 134 - United States v. Phillips

United States v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

599 F.2d 134 · 1979

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
4
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably United States v. Hamilton (1982), United States v. Lucas (2004)

23 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 state decisions

18019791980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Houltin v. United States · Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. v. City of Chicago · United States v. Holladay · United States v. Jacobson

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

  1. “(1) that the jury may convict a “bad man” who deserves to be punished not because he is guilty of the crime charged but because of his prior or subsequent misdeeds; and (2) that the jury will infer that because the accused committed other crimes he probably committed the crime charged.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[s]omething more than repeated performance of the same class of crimes is required in evidencing a 'design' or 'plan' which, if proved, may raise the inference that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime in question.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.””
    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.