United States v. Whitley’s Empirical Analysis
734 F.2d 1129 · 1984
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2014 · most notably Mathews v. United States (1988), United States v. Mendez-Ortiz (1986)
64 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 811 (§ 201 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Bruton v. United States · Doyle v. Ohio · Roviaro v. United States · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In balancing those competing interests in the context of a criminal case, courts must consider 'the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and other relevant factors.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'is limited where the disclosure of an informer's identity, or of the contents of [an informer's] communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]his Court has required disclosure of an informant's identity when the informer was an eyewitness to, and in fact a participant in, the exchange of contraband by the defendant seller.”
4 later decisions 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.