United States v. Ember’s Empirical Analysis
726 F.2d 522 · 1984
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2007
19 federal appellate · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Relies on United States v. Scott · United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. · Sanabria v. United States · Fong Foo v. United States · Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“actually [represents] a resolution [in the defendant's favor], correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In a criminal case an appeal by the United States shall lie to the court of appeals from a decision, judgment or order of a district court dismissing an indictment or information or granting a new trial after verdict or judgment, as to any one or more counts, except that no appeal shall lie when the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution prohibits further prosecution. (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“except that no appeal shall lie where the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution prohibits further prosecution.”
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.