Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 696 F.2d 722 - United States v. Hines

United States v. Hines’s Empirical Analysis

696 F.2d 722 · 1982

Citation profile

115
cited by 115 later decisions
9
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

72 federal appellate · 15 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Franks v. Nimmo (1986), United States v. Murphy (1985)

72 federal appellate · 15 district · 10 state decisions

59019821990200020102020decided

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. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 138 · 28 U.S.C. § 144 · 28 U.S.C. § 455

Relies on Spinelli v. United States · Ohio v. Roberts · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Parker v. Levy

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

  1. “[S]ection 455(a) must not be so broadly construed that it becomes, in effect, presumptive, so that recusal is mandated upon the merest unsubstantiated suggestion of personal bias or prejudice.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the ordinary person exercising ordinary common sense”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,”
    3 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.