Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 613 F.2d 1349 - United States v. Walker

United States v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

613 F.2d 1349 · 1980

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
1
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably United States v. Phillips (1981), United States v. Parodi (1983)

39 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

29019801990200020102020decided

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)

Relies on Glasser v. United States · Burks v. United States · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Santoni v. United States · Jones v. Nor-Tex Agencies, 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Sequestration requires that witnesses not discuss the case among themselves or anyone else, other than the counsel for the parties.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Cross-examination with respect to part of a transaction enables the opposing party to elicit evidence on re-direct examination of the whole transaction at least to the extent it relates to the same subject (citing Barrentine). Because the defendants opened the door to this line of questioning, the government's questions on redirect were permissible.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a conviction for prostitution does not involve dishonesty or false statement and is not admissible under 609(a) for impeachment purposes.”
    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.