United States v. Indorato’s Empirical Analysis
628 F.2d 711 · 1980
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 8 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Cage v. Louisiana (1990), Commonwealth v. Tavares (1982)
44 federal appellate · 8 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 26 U.S.C. § 7203
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Berger v. United States · Russell v. United States · Garrity v. State of New Jersey · Hagner v. United States
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In all of the cases flowing from Garrity, there are two common features: (1) the person being investigated is explicitly told that failure to waive his constitutional right against self-incrimination will result in his discharge from public employment (or a similarly severe sanction imposed in the case of private citizens); and (2) there is a statute or municipal ordinance mandating such procedure.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in the reasonable doubt jury charge, but we do not regard their use, in the context of the full charge given in this case, as reaching the level of legal or constitutional error. [6] Defense counsel in Myles erroneously failed to object the the prosecutor's argument which implied that the death penalty should be imposed because”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the state police departmental rules ... provided for the dismissal of any officer who refused to obey the lawful order of superiors,” and that he would be sanctioned for refusing to obey a superior’s command by refusing to answer a question. Id. at 715 . The court found that”
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.