United States v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis
632 F.2d 1354 · 1980
Citation profile
113 federal appellate · 5 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 146 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably United States v. Kenny (1981), United States v. Bledsoe (1982)
113 federal appellate · 5 district · 12 state decisions — followed in 10 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 18 U.S.C. § 1954 · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 664 (Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Berger v. United States · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Morissette 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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To satisfy this heavy burden, an appellant must show that the joint trial was so prejudicial as to require the exercise of the district judge's discretion in only one way: by ordering a separate trial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[m]ere factual similarity of events will not suffice,”
3 later decisions 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.