United States v. Goodwin’s Empirical Analysis
637 F.2d 250 · 1981
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2018 · most notably United States v. Goodwin (1982), Person v. Miller (1988)
19 federal appellate · 9 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 111 · 18 U.S.C. § 13 · 18 U.S.C. § 7
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Bordenkircher v. Hayes · Blackledge v. Perry · Reiter v. Sonotone Corp. · Colten v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"If the government wishes to avoid the limitation on prosecutorial discretion dictated by Blackledge , it must come forward with objective evidence to show that the increased charges could not have been brought before the defendant exercised his rights.” Goodwin , at 255.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Not unreasonably, notice of the authority of the officer to give the signal is an essential element of the crime of failing to obey. That notice is given when the officer is on foot and is wearing his uniform and insignia of office, or, if the officer is in a vehicle, when the vehicle is marked as an official police vehicle. In the latter instance, additional notice from the wearing of a uniform and displaying an insignia of office is unnecessary, especially when it is remembered that the garb of the policeman within the official police vehicle may not even be visible. A contrary reading would lead to some bizarre results. If both conditions must be alleged and proved in order to render § 21-904 applicable, a motorist with impunity could ignore a signal to stop from a plainclothes policeman in an official police car or an off-duty policeman in a official car. We do not think that these possibilities were intended by the Maryland legislature.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. State“Any driver of a motor vehicle who wilfully fails or refuses to bring his vehicle to a stop, or who otherwise flees or attempts to elude a pursuing police vehicle, when given visual or audible signal to bring the vehicle to a stop, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The signal given by the police officer may be by hand, voice, emergency light, or siren. The officer giving the signal shall be in uniform, prominently displaying his badge or other insignia of office, and his vehicle shall be appropriately marked showing it to be an official police vehicle.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. State
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.