Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 665 F.2d 521 - United States v. Brummitt

United States v. Brummitt’s Empirical Analysis

665 F.2d 521 · 1981

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably State v. Castonguay (1984), United States v. Gregory (1984)

29 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

3001981199020002010decided

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. § 1510 · 18 U.S.C. § 1621 · 18 U.S.C. § 401 · 18 U.S.C. § 6002 · 28 U.S.C. § 1861 (Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1863 · 28 U.S.C. § 1865 · 28 U.S.C. § 1867

Relies on Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Castaneda v. Partida · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · County of Los Angeles v. Chavez-Salido · Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman

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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts of the United States.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[n]o citizen shall be excluded from service as a grand or petit juror in the district courts of the United States ... on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “pointed out that Mexican criminal law, which permits in absentia prosecutions, imposes harsh criminal penalties and that Mexican courts would not be bound by a grant of immunity in the United States”
    1 later decision 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.