United States v. Lieberman’s Empirical Analysis
608 F.2d 889 · 1979
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 13 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably United States v. Houlihan (1996), United States v. Hensel (1983)
40 federal appellate · 13 district · 7 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 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · United States v. Nixon · United States v. Marion · Rochin v. People of California
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Because the Harrison holding was based upon Fed.R.Crim.P. 16 and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), we do not find it particularly enlightening on the Jencks Act issue in this case, and we need not consider whether we would follow Harrison or adhere to the views we expressed in Campbell v. United States, 296 F.2d 527 , 531-32 and n. 8 (1st Cir.1961).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Pjroof of actual prejudice makes a due process claim concrete and ripe for adjudication . . . . [Pjroof of prejudice is generally a necessary but not sufficient element of a due process claim . [TJhe due process inquiry must consider the reasons for the delay as well as the prejudice to the accused.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a ruling quashing a subpoena is appealable after conviction, [however] the trial court has so much discretion in this area that reversal is unlikely.”
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.