In re United States’s Empirical Analysis
666 F.2d 690 · 1981
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 38 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 201 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably United States v. DeLuna (1985), United States v. Murphy (1985)
66 federal appellate · 38 district · 10 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 Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal. · Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers, Inc. v. United States · Kilcullen v. United States · United States v. International Business Machines Corp. · Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
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 201 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“provide what an objective, knowledgeable member of the public would find to be a reasonable basis for doubting the judge's impartiality.”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“cannot be defended as a rational conclusion supported by a reasonable reading of the record.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Any justice, judge, magistrate, or referee in bankruptcy of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it; (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy; (4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; (ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest th”
9 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.