Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 702 F.2d 342 - United States v. Bifield

United States v. Bifield’s Empirical Analysis

702 F.2d 342 · 1983

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 6 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Nix v. Whiteside (1986), United States v. Yousef (2003)

47 federal appellate · 6 district · 15 state decisions

3201983199020002010decided

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. § 3481 · 18 U.S.C. § 751

Relies on Faretta v. California · Jackson v. Denno · Harris v. New York · United States v. Bailey · Poe v. Ullman

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

  1. “'specifically and repeatedly that [the defendant] was innocent when presented for trial and continued to be innocent until such time, if ever, as the government proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[T]he instructions ... when read in their entirety, were sufficiently clear so as not to dilute the presumption of innocence to which appellant is entitled.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “it is better practice to avoid using [such] language.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.