Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 775 F.2d 559 - United States v. Schell

United States v. Schell’s Empirical Analysis

775 F.2d 559 · 1985

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
5
states following
November 2019
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently November 2019 · most notably United States v. Pungitore (1990), United States v. Kennedy (2000)

25 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 state decisions

2501985199020002010decided

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. § 1952 · 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 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Giglio v. United States · United States v. Turkette · Albernaz v. United States

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

  1. “[D]ue process is violated when an attorney represents a client and then participates in the prosecution of that client with respect to the same matter.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The relationship between an attorney and his client is a sacred one. In that relationship, the client must be secure in the knowledge that any information he reveals to counsel will remain confidential. The confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship is severely compromised, if not destroyed, when, after representing a client, a lawyer joins in the criminal prosecution of that client with respect to the identical matter about which the attorney originally counseled the client. Such switching of sides is fundamentally unfair and inherently prejudicial.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Assuming that all of the government’s assertions are true, the fact remains that Jividen represented Wilson and Cain with respect to the very same criminal activity which led to the indictment that he ultimately helped to prosecute and under which Wilson and Cain were convicted.”
    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.