United States v. Tuttle’s Empirical Analysis
729 F.2d 1325 · 1984
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2007 · most notably Vereen v. United States (1985), United States v. Hewes (1984)
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1863 · 28 U.S.C. § 1867
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Swain v. State of Alabama · Taylor v. Louisiana · Duren v. Missouri · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a “distinctive” group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bowen v. Kemp
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.