United States v. Levine’s Empirical Analysis
658 F.2d 113 · 1981
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 6 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably 14 Cal. 4th 367 - Cowan v. Superior Court (1996), United States v. Helbling (2000)
44 federal appellate · 6 district · 12 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. § 3282 · 18 U.S.C. § 3287 (Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3290 · 18 U.S.C. § 660 · 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Barker v. Wingo · North Carolina v. Pearce · Santobello v. New York · Ashe v. Swenson
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are intended to foreclose the potential for inaccuracy and unfairness that stale evidence and dull memories may occasion in an unduly delayed trial.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he very nature of a double jeopardy claim is such that it is collateral to, and separable from the principal issue at the accused’s impending criminal trial, i.e., whether or not the accused is guilty of the offense charged. In arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars his prosecution, the defendant makes no challenge whatsoever to the merits of the charge against him. Nor does he seek suppression of evidence which the Government plans to use in obtaining a conviction. Rather, he is contesting the very authority of the Government to hale him into court to face trial on the charge against him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.