United States v. Saade’s Empirical Analysis
652 F.2d 1126 · 1981
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 18 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably United States v. Rodriguez (1988), United States v. Fischel (1982)
51 federal appellate · 18 district · 7 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. § 3504 · 33 U.S.C. § 1 · 33 U.S.C. § 3
Relies on Yakus v. United States · Morton v. Mancari · United States v. Batchelder · United States v. Borden Co. · Dorszynski 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that, while others similarly situated have not generally been proceeded against because of conduct of the type forming the basis of the charge against him, he has been singled out for prosecution, and (2) that the government’s discriminatory selection of him for prosecution has been invidious or in bad faith, i. e., based upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or the desire to prevent his exercise of constitutional rights[,]”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“unreasonably ... interfere with or restrict the food fishing industry.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A defendant need not ... present a prima facie case in order to justify an evidentiary hearing. So long as the defendant alleges some facts a) tending to show that he [or she] has been selectively prosecuted, and b) raising a reasonable doubt about the propriety of the prosecution’s purpose, a district court, in the absence of countervailing reasons, should grant a request for a hearing.”
2 later decisions 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.