United States v. Hetrick’s Empirical Analysis
644 F.2d 752 · 1980
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably Gubiensio-Ortiz v. Kanahele (1988), State Bar of Nevada v. Claiborne (1988)
51 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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. § 3731 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Relies on United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. · Will v. United States · United States v. Wilson · United States v. Addonizio · Dann v. Johnston
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by styling the subsequent motion as a 'motion for reconsideration.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“from all final decisions of the district courts”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A motion to reduce a sentence may be made, or the court may reduce a sentence without motion, within 120 days after the sentence is imposed ... or within 120 days after receipt by the court of a mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal, or within 120 days after entry of any order or judgment of the Supreme Court denying review of, or having the effect of upholding, a judgment of conviction. The court shall determine the motion within a reasonable time.”
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.