Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 636 F.2d 194 - United States v. Walker

United States v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

636 F.2d 194 · 1980

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
August 2008
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2008

6 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

40198019902000decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission · Phelps Dodge Corp. v. AFL-CIO Joint Negotiating Committee · Davis v. United States · Nash v. United States · Giblin 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'Hearsay is testimony in court of an out-of-court statement offered to show the truth of the matters asserted in the statement.’ Giblin v. United States, 523 F.2d 42, 45 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 971 , 96 S.Ct. 1470 , 47 L.Ed.2d 739 (1976). Agent Shurn did not testify as to any statement made by the confidential informant. He merely testified as to his own behavior based on information he received from the informant. This type of testimony is not hearsay and is properly admissible.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Neither was it error for the lower court to overrule appellant’s hearsay objection to a government agent’s testimony regarding what he did after talking to an informant. This was not hearsay, as the witness did not testify as to what the informant told him, nor was the evidence offered to prove the truth of what the informant said. Davis v. United States, 411 F.2d 1126, 1127-28 .”
    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.