United States v. Leppo’s Empirical Analysis
634 F.2d 101 · 1980
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Stewart v. Donges (1990), Venen v. Sweet (1985)
45 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 state decisions
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. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3148 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Burks v. United States · Abney v. United States · United States v. Jorn · United States v. Dinitz
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Therefore, in the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction, and recognizing fully the letter and spirit of Abney v. United States, we hold that an appeal from the denial of a double jeopardy motion does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to proceed with trial, if the district court has found the motion to be frivolous and supported its conclusions by written findings. Rather, both the district court and court of appeals shall have jurisdiction to proceed. Thus the defendant is entitled ultimately to appellate review. Of course, in the absence of a finding that the motion is frivolous, the trial court must suspend its proceedings once a notice of appeal is filed. In those instances in which it refuses to do so, or when its findings are not supported by the record, the concerns of Abney are sufficiently safeguarded by the availability of a stay pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 8, or a writ of mandamus or prohibition under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 . See Dunbar, 611 F.2d at 989 . Petitioner has used these procedures here, demonstrating their viability. At the same time, this decision gives effect to the important public policy favoring expeditious criminal justice.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[t]his rule is not based on statutory provisions or the rules of procedure. Rather, it is a judge-made rule designed to avoid confusion or waste of time that might flow from putting the same issues before two courts at the same time____”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“should not be employed to defeat its purpose or to induce unnecessary paper shuffling.”
2 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.