United States v. Teller’s Empirical Analysis
762 F.2d 569 · 1985
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently November 2006 · most notably United States v. Cieslowski (2005), United States v. Ellison (1986)
35 federal appellate · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 20 · 18 U.S.C. § 4242 · 18 U.S.C. § 4243 · 25 U.S.C. § 903 (Menominee Restoration Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1360 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · North Carolina v. Alford · Brady v. United States · Santobello v. New York
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“questions of jurisdiction are raised by two facts — the crime took place on an Indian reservation, and so trial was to be in federal court, and the defendant is an Indian, and so perhaps not subject to the state’s civil commitment procedures.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burgess v. Watters“the distinction between federal and state jurisdiction is among the most basic to our legal system, and even a reasonably competent first year law student must be aware of it,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.”
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.