United States v. Tom’s Empirical Analysis
640 F.2d 1037 · 1981
Citation profile
17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
April 1998
most recently cited
13 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Harris v. McRae · Time, Inc. v. Bon Air Hotel, Inc. · Town of Mashpee v. Mashpee Tribe · Notaro v. United States · United States v. Bosley
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he testimony was, as the trial judge recognized, highly prejudicial. This is especially true given defendant’s reliance on the defense of entrapment. He needed to show doubt as to whether he was predisposed to drug dealing. The jury may well have improperly inferred predisposition from the past conviction [footnote omitted]. The trial court went through the Rule 403 balancing analysis and decided that the impeaching testimony was too pertinent to credibility to be excluded [footnote omitted]. This balancing ... is committed to the trial court [citation omitted] (emphasis supplied).”
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.