Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 708 F.2d 587 - United States v. Slocum

United States v. Slocum’s Empirical Analysis

708 F.2d 587 · 1983

Citation profile

109
cited by 109 later decisions
6
states following
May 2022
most recently cited

63 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably United States v. Schlei (1997), The United States of America v. James Glenn Chastain Larry Gene Hopkins (1999)

63 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions

39019831990200020102020decided

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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 287 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 542 · 18 U.S.C. § 549 · 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (Tariff Act of 1930)

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Glasser v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · United States v. Cortez · Hamling 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[W]e find ourselves in agreement with the decision on the merits of the new trial motion and where the defendants failed to file even an affidavit by [ ] the person whose post-trial statement clearly came the closest to requiring a new trial, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “unless the evidence is so highly prejudicial as to be incurable by the trial court's admonition.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[1] That the defendant made or presented a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim to a department of the United States; [2] That the defendant knew such claim was false, fictitious, or fraudulent; [3] That the defendant did so with the specific intent to violate the law or with a consciousness that what he was doing was wrong.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.