Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 621 F.2d 844 - United States v. Woods

United States v. Woods’s Empirical Analysis

621 F.2d 844 · 1980

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
February 2015
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 2015

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

901980199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 547

Relies on Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. · United States v. Mauro · Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus · Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation · Stroble v. Anderson

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

  1. “simply stat[es] the obvious, which is that in entering into the [IAD], the United States had not agreed with itself.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The government of the District of Columbia has reported that unless the legislation is made applicable to the District there is no method available whereby a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment in one of the party States and against whom there is pending in the courts of the District of Columbia an information or complaint based upon a violation of a municipal regulation or ordinance, or an act of Congress in the nature of a municipal regulation or ordinance which is applicable solely within the District of Columbia, may require the disposition of a detainer lodged against him. Furthermore unless the legislation is made applicable to the District, its prosecuting authorities would not be able to have a prisoner in a party State made available for disposition of local detainers. For these reasons the government of the District of Columbia recommended the amendments which the committee has adopted.”
    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.