Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 773 F.2d 55 - Fuson v. Jago

Fuson v. Jago’s Empirical Analysis

773 F.2d 55 · 1985

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
4
states following
January 2010
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently January 2010 · most notably United States v. Garcia (1990), Clemmons v. Sowders (1994)

25 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

1601985199020002010decided

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

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Bruton v. United States · Ohio v. Roberts · Pointer v. Texas · United States v. Nixon

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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “... the declarant is unavailable and that his statements bear adequate 'indicia of reliability'. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); Stevens v. Bordenkircher, 746 F.2d 342 , 347 (6th Cir.1984); United States v. Licavoli, 725 F.2d at 1049. If the hearsay testimony falls within an established hearsay exception, its reliability can be inferred. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66, 100 S.Ct. at 2539. If, however, an established exception to the hearsay rule does not apply, 'the [hearsay testimony] must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.' Id.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'[A] statement (confession) admitting guilt and implicating another person in the same crime and made while in custody, might well be motivated by a desire to curry favor with the authorities and, hence, fail to qualify as being against interest.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “habeas review does not ordinarily extend to state court rulings on the admissibility of evidence.”
    2 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.