Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 604 F.2d 922 - United States v. Stone

United States v. Stone’s Empirical Analysis

604 F.2d 922 · 1979

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
3
states following
December 2019
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably United States v. Dancy (1988), United States v. Quezada (1985)

19 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

16019791980199020002010decided

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. § 1708

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · California v. Green · Harrington v. California · Palmer v. Hoffman

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

  1. ““When an error is not of constitutional magnitude, it is not grounds for reversing a conviction if the error had no substantial influence, and enough evidence supports the result apart from the phase affected by error. Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 [ 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 ] (1946); United States v. Rodriguez, 573 F.2d 330 , 334 (5th Cir. 1978).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (8) Public Records and Reports. Records reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “When an ex parte affidavit presents evidence beyond the simple authentication requirements ... the extraneous portions of the affidavit constitute inadmissible hearsay....”
    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.