Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 678 F.2d 1202 - United States v. Arias

United States v. Arias’s Empirical Analysis

678 F.2d 1202 · 1982

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
3
states following
November 2007
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently November 2007

17 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

150198219902000decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Turner v. United States · O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden · United States v. Crews · United States v. Bailey

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

  1. “the identity of defendants is not suppressible under the exclusionary rule.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Joint Representation. Whenever two or more defendants have been jointly charged pursuant to Rule 8(b) or have been joined for trial pursuant to Rule 13, and are represented by the same retained or assigned counsel or by retained or assigned counsel who are associated in the practice of law, the court shall promptly inquire with respect to such joint representation and shall personally advise each defendant of his right to effective assistance of counsel, including separate representation. Unless it appears that there is good cause to believe no conflict of interest is likely to arise, the court shall take such measures as may be appropriate to protect each defendant’s right to counsel.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The failure in a particular case to conduct a rule 44(c) inquiry would not, standing alone, necessitate the reversal of a conviction of a jointly represented defendant.”
    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.