Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 652 A2D 1098 - Roy v. United States

Roy v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
3
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

2 district · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Rivas v. United States (2001), Wilson-Bey v. United States (2006)

2 district · 30 state decisions

140199520002010decided

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

Relies on Griffin v. United States · Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe · United States v. Peoni · Johnson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. · Baker 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[I]t is essential that the defendant present enough information — regarding the nature of the testimony he wishes to give on one count and his reasons for not wishing to testify on the other — to satisfy the court that the claim of prejudice is genuine and to enable it intelligently to weigh the considerations of “economy and expedition in judicial administration” against defendant’s interest in having a free choice with respect to testifying.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Natural” has many meanings, but the most apposite dictionary definition is “in accordance with or determined by nature.” A natural consequence is thus one which is within the normal range of outcomes that may be expected to occur if nothing unusual has intervened. We need not define “probable,” except to note that, even standing alone, this adjective sets a significantly more exacting standard than the word “possible.” Accordingly, if we accord to the words of our cases their ordinary everyday meaning, it is not enough for the prosecution to show that the accomplice knew or should have known that the principal might conceivably commit the offense which the accomplice is charged ....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.