United States v. James’s Empirical Analysis
609 F.2d 36 · 1979
Citation profile
68 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2014 · most notably United States v. Abel (1984), United States v. Phillips (1981)
68 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 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. § 1014 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282 · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 3504 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Rakas v. Illinois · Pinkerton v. United States · United States v. Calandra · Alderman v. United States · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Although it has been said that a claim that illegal surveillance occurred need not be particularized, United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1974), it is now established that it cannot be based on mere suspicion but must have at least a ‘colorable basis’ before the government will be obliged to respond. United States v. Yanagita, 552 F.2d 940, 943 (2d Cir. 1977); In re Miiiow, 529 F.2d 770 (2d Cir. 1976). James set forth no basis for suspecting the existence of such surveillance other than a conclusory allegation that the participation of the Strike Force in the investigation made such an event more likely than not. This allegation was insufficient to call for an all-agency search.” United States v. James, 609 F.2d 36, 51 (2d Cir. 1979).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness’ character for truthfulness ... may not be proved by extrinsic evidence.... They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness ... concerning the witness’ character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not only to the witness’ factual narrative, but also to impeachment of his direct testimony by showing bias and interest.”). 33 . El-Hage's brief suggests that the videotape transcripts reveal that al-Fadl “knew” he faced no genuine possibility of imprisonment because the tapes contain”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.