United States v. Veatch’s Empirical Analysis
647 F.2d 995 · 1981
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently December 2000 · most notably United States v. Duggan (1984), Government of the Virgin Islands v. Knight (1993)
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244
Relies on Faretta v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Rakas v. Illinois · Sedillo v. United States · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rule 12.2(a) provides as follows: If a defendant intends to rely upon the defense of insanity at the time of the alleged crime, he shall, within the time provided for the filing of pretrial motions or at such later time as the court may direct, notify the attorney for the government in writing of such intention and file a copy of such notice with the clerk. If there is a failure to comply with the requirements of this subdivision, insanity may not be raised as a defense. The court may for cause shown allow late filing of the notice or grant additional time to the parties to prepare for trial or make such other order as may be appropriate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“). 21 Knight interprets Rule 12.2(a) in a slavishly literal fashion. If read literally, Rule 12.2(a) states that a defendant forfeits the right to assert an insanity defense only when a pretrial motion date passes without the filing of a notice of intent. Following this analysis to its logical end, if no pretrial motion date is set, no notice of intent, whenever filed, is untimely. Adopting this construction would subvert, rather then implement, the purpose of Rule 12.2(a). 22 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 12.2 make it clear that the objective of the notice requirement is”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“legitimate expectation of privacy” analysis. As we stated in Veatch, "The Court made clear that its decision only affected terminology and not substance ...”
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.