Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 679 F.2d 1240 - United States v. Boykin

United States v. Boykin’s Empirical Analysis

679 F.2d 1240 · 1982

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 2006
most recently cited

60 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2006 · most notably Batson v. Kentucky (1986), United States v. DeLuna (1985)

60 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

580198219902000decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Swain v. State of Alabama · Costello v. United States · Apodaca v. Oregon · Nogueras v. Puerto Rico International Airlines, Inc.

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

  1. “An indictment may be valid even if it is based entirely on hearsay. [Cite omitted.] As noted in Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 , 76 S.Ct. 406, 408 , 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956), “[a]n indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits. The Fifth Amendment requires nothing more. A defendant may not challenge an indictment on the ground that information which he considered favorable to his defense was not presented to the grand jury. E.g. United States v. Cederquist, 641 F.2d 1347 , 1353 n.3 (9th Cir. 1981). See United States v. Gunter, 631 F.2d 583, 586 (8th Cir. 1980).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice____””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “affected substantial rights resulting in a miscarriage of justice.”
    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.