United States v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
779 F.2d 1313 · 1985
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably United States v. Douglas (1987), United States v. Canino (1991)
38 federal appellate · 1 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. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention 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 Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub · Herrmann v. United States · Filmon v. Florida · Parham v. J. L. · Farrell v. Massachusetts
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]bsent any indication of willful delay or desire to circumvent ... the Act,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Rule thus limits the district court's inquiry into possible jury prejudice to findings of fact at two separate levels: 'First, the district court must find the basic, or subsidiary, facts--e.g., the nature, content, and extent of the extra-judicial contact. Based on its findings of subsidiary facts, the district court must then make the ultimate factual determination: whether the contact likely affected the jurors' impartiality.' " United States v. Green, 779 F.2d 1313 , 1322 (7th Cir.1985). 38 In the case at bar, the counsel for the respondent asked the following questions of the jurors: Juror Chamberlain--Q. "When the statement by the bailiff [was] made, did you, as a juror, feel any pressure in order to reach a verdict?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the plain language of the statute reveals that Congress intended to impose a broad prohibition against the manufacture of [methamphetamine] as well as the possession of [pseudoephedrine] when knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the [pseudoephedrine] would be used to manufacture [methamphetamine].”
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.