Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 692 F.2d 672 - United States v. Schell

United States v. Schell’s Empirical Analysis

692 F.2d 672 · 1982

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
December 2019
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2019 · most notably Schall v. Martin (1984), Commonwealth v. Wright (1985)

37 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 10 states

4201982199020002010decided

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. § 751

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Wolff v. McDonnell

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

  1. “a period of confinement longer than that provided for such [underlying] felony is required for the protection of the public from further criminal conduct by the defendant.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “In bail and sentencing proceedings, trial judges routinely consider a defendant's propensity to engage in future criminal conduct and the potential danger a defendant poses to society. The concept of dangerousness as defined in section 3575 merely articulates considerations underlying any bail or sentencing decision.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Due process ... requires that [the defendant] be present with counsel, have an opportunity to be heard, be confronted with witnesses against him, have the right to cross-examine, and to offer evidence of his own. And there must be findings adequate to make meaningful any appeal that is allowed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.