United States v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
702 F.2d 833 · 1983
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably United States v. Whitworth (1988), United States v. Burt (1985)
33 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 665 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Iannelli v. United States · Swansboro Country, Inc. v. Lumberman's Mortgage Co. · Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. United States · Ryan v. United States
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“because of the conduct of a trial judge in 'rebuking or punishing [counsel]' or otherwise intervening in the proceedings, 'it must appear that the conduct measured by the facts of the case presented together with the result of the trial, was clearly prejudicial to the rights of the party.'”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It was justifiable for the trial judge to reprimand defense counsel for holding a document in his hand during cross-examination in a way designed to suggest that it was a report he was reading from, where he had been told in a prior sidebar conference to avoid precisely this tactic”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Mensey
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.