Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 729 F.2d 10 - United States v. Hemmer

United States v. Hemmer’s Empirical Analysis

729 F.2d 10 · 1984

Citation profile

122
cited by 122 later decisions
5
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

82 federal appellate · 14 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably United States v. Batista-Polanco (1991), United States v. Zichettello (2000)

82 federal appellate · 14 district · 5 state decisions

5901984199020002010decided

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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 5032

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Roviaro v. United States · Smith v. Phillips · Hoffa 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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[i]n light of the gravity of the crime involved, [armed bank robbery and conspiracy to rob a bank,] weighed against the other five section 5032 factors, we cannot say that the district court struck the balance improperly.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “any results or reports ... of scientific tests or experiments.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A prosecution witness who had testified differently in the past was introduced by the prosecution. It was not improper for the prosecution to offer this testimony. Presentation of a witness who recants or contradicts his prior testimony is not to be confused with eliciting perjury. It was for the jury to decide whether or not to credit the witness. There is no evidence that the prosecution knew or believed the trial testimony to be untrue; hence, the conviction was not obtained by the presentation of testimony known to be false.”
    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.