United States v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
768 F.2d 1518 · 1985
Citation profile
177 federal appellate · 8 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 305 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2023 · most notably In Re Diana R Beard et Als, United States v. Balistrieri (1985)
177 federal appellate · 8 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 6002 · 28 U.S.C. § 2111 · 28 U.S.C. § 455
Relies on Giglio v. United States · Wainwright v. Sykes · United States v. Young · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc
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 305 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he existence of a ‘reasonable question’ varies from time to time as ordinary conduct of lawyers and judges changes ... The ordinary standards of conduct of the legal profession reflect judgments about the likelihood of actual impropriety in a particular case. Unless the conduct is substantially out of the ordinary, it is unnecessary to pursue the further question whether the conduct presents the appearance of impropriety—although it is always possible to inquire into actual impropriety no matter how common the conduct may be. In today’s legal culture friendships among judges and lawyers are common. They are more than common; they are desirable. A judge need not cut himself off from the rest of the legal community. Social as well as official communications among judges and lawyers may improve the quality of legal decisions. Social interactions also make service on the bench, quite isolated as a rule, more tolerable to judges. Many well-qualified people would hesitate to become judges if they knew that wearing the robe meant either discharging one’s friends or risking disqualification in substantial numbers of cases. Many courts therefore have held that a judge need not disqualify himself just because a friend — even a close friend — appears as a lawyer. E.g., In re United States, 666 F.2d 690 (1st Cir.1981); Parrish v. Board of Commissioners, 524 F.2d 98 (5th Cir.1975) (en banc). Cf. Merit Ins. Co. v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 714 F.2d 673, 680 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. ”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(a) Any justice, judge or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[s]uch notice may not be necessary, and certainly a criminal defendant is in no position to complain of the absence of such notice (for he has no personal right to protect the dignity of the Cook County courts).”
3 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.