United States v. James’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.2d 40 · 1983
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably United States v. Lewis (1985), United States v. Ditommaso (1987)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
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 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division · United States v. Barnes · United States v. Curcio · United States v. Cunningham
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Cleckley's prior representation potentially puts him in a position to use privileged information obtained during his prior representation of the witness[es].... This problem is multiplied in the [case of] witnesses Samuel T. Iaquinta and Ralph Philip Spadafore, where general business matters were discussed and where the same indictment is involved respectively.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he assessment of the fairness of an attorney's questioning of a former client must depend in large part on the view of the client,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is, in theory, no vice in the proposed questioning of a former client that springs from sources independent of the client. But, as a practical matter, when sources other than matters of public record are cited, they are substantially more difficult to verify — especially where, as here, counsel may well have received confidential information from the [former client] on a wide variety of matters over a long period of time — and the court’s ability to protect the [former client’s] privilege is proportionately weakened.”
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.