United States v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
653 F.2d 1002 · 1981
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably United States v. Frazier (2004), United States v. Young (1984)
48 federal appellate · 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. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Davis v. Alaska · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · United States v. Bright · Cecere v. United States · United States v. Onori
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The exposure of possible motivations for false testimony is a fundamental element of cross-examination.... Thus, cross-examination into any motivation or incentive a witness may have for falsifying his testimony must be permitted.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether a proposition is of consequence to the determination of the action is a question that is governed by the substantive law. Simply stated, the proposition to be proved must be part of the hypothesis governing the case — a matter that is in issue, or probative of a matter that is in issue, in the litigation. The governing hypothesis of any criminal prosecution consists of the elements of the offenses charged and the relevant defenses (if any) raised to defeat criminal liability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hokanson
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.