United States v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
605 F.2d 939 · 1979
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably United States v. Phillips (1981), Phillips v. Joint Legislative Committee on Performance & Expenditure Review (1981)
18 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 144
Relies on United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Texas v. Louisiana · Berger v. United States · Goldstein v. United States · Harelson 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) Presentence Investigation. (1) When Made. The probation service of the court shall make a presentence investigation and report to the court before the imposition of sentence or the granting of probation unless, with the permission of the court, the defendant waives a presentence investigation and report, or the court finds that there is in the record information sufficient to enable the meaningful exercise of sentencing discretion, and the court explains this finding on the record. The report shall not be submitted to the court or its contents disclosed to anyone unless the defendant has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere or has been found guilty, except that a judge may, with the written consent of the defendant, inspect a presentence report at any time.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case”
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.