Ballou v. Henri Studios, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
656 F.2d 1147 · 1981
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably United States v. Martino (1985), United States v. Jamil (1983)
56 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 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
Relies on Cole v. United States · United Mine Workers, Local No. 1854 v. National Labor Relations Board · Cleveland v. United States · In re Vendo Co. · Pesce 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"It is firmly established in this Circuit that the question whether the proponent of evidence has proved an adequate chain of custody goes to the weight rather than the admissibility of the evidence, and is thus reserved for the jury. United States v. Henderson, 588 F.2d 157, 160 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 975 , 99 S.Ct. 1544 , 59 L.Ed.2d 794 (1979); United States v. White, 569 F.2d 263, 266 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 848 , 99 S.Ct. 148 , 58 L.Ed.2d 149 (1978); United States v. Ellis, 547 F.2d 863, 868 (5th Cir.1977). Likewise, the issue of alteration, contamination or adulteration of the evidence is a question for the jury once the proponent of the evidence makes a threshold showing that reasonable precautions were taken against the risk of alteration, contamination or adulteration. See United States v. Lane, 591 F.2d 961 (D.C.Cir.1979); United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 871 , 93 S.Ct. 200 , 34 L.Ed.2d 122 (1972). The proponent of the evidence `need not rule out every conceivable chance that somehow the identity or character of the evidence underwent change.... So long as the court is persuaded that as a matter of normal likelihood the evidence has been adequately safeguarded, the jury should be permitted to consider and assess it in light of the surrounding circumstances.' Lane, 591 F.2d at 962-63 . Under Fed.R. Evid. 901, once the proponent of the evidence meets the threshold requirement of showing that `in ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an undue tendency to suggest [a] decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one”
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.