Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 622 F.2d 19 - Jervis v. Hall

Jervis v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

622 F.2d 19 · 1980

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 2025

8 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

8019801990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · Drew v. United States · King v. United States · United States v. Foutz · Commonwealth v. Bartolini

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

  1. “[S]o long as a legitimate state purpose was served by the admission of prior-crime evidence, its admission was not subject to constitutional attack”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Petitioner in opposing the motion, stated he was not ready to proceed on the larceny charge, but he did not seek a continuance. While trial commenced on the day the motion was granted, May 8, 1973, Petitioner did not make his opening statement or call any witnesses until May 14, 1973.... Petitioner does not now state he would have conducted his defense differently if informed earlier of the correct date of the larceny, and we see no prejudice to petitioner from allowance of the amendment.”
    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.