United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
60 F.3d 128 · 1995
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably State v. Outing (2010), Bruneau ex rel. Schofield v. South Kortright Central School District (1998)
25 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 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. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 994
Relies on Stinson v. United States · Geders v. United States · Truong Dinh Hung v. United States · Golden Pacific Bancorp v. United States · Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Shugrue
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because a court may only decline to grant a party’s request to sequester particular witnesses under one of the Rule 615 exemptions, the rule carries a strong presumption in favor of sequestration. The party opposing sequestration therefore has the burden of demonstrating why the pertinent Rule 615 exception applies ... and why the policy of the Rule in favor of automatic sequestration is inapplicable in that situation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“At a party’s request, the court must order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses’ testimony. Or the court may do so on its own. But this rule does not authorize excluding: (a) a party who is a natural person; (c) a person whose presence a party shows to be essential to presenting the party’s claim or defense;”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“does not authorize the exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause.”
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.