United States v. Malmay’s Empirical Analysis
671 F.2d 869 · 1982
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably United States v. Duncan (1990), United States v. Lipscomb (2002)
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 Irvin v. Dowd · National League of Cities v. Usery · 'The Ku-Klux Cases' Yarbrough · Ex parte Siebold · Smiley v. Holm
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“According to the due process standards established in Irvin v. Dowd , 366 U.S. 717 , 81 S.Ct. 1639 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961), the Constitution does not entitle a criminal defendant to a trial by a body of jurors ignorant of all facts surrounding a case, but only an impartial jury that will render a verdict based exclusively on the evidence presented in the court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]ourts have generally felt that voir dire examination is the appropriate mechanism for screening jurors to avoid bias,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Aside from being ready instruments of further manipulation, their presence distorts the total, leaves to chance the federal candidates who might— or might not — receive their vote, distorts the results, and is, therefore, repugnant to the integrity of the elective 1 process.”
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.