United States v. Martir’s Empirical Analysis
782 F.2d 1141 · 1986
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably United States v. Melendez-Carrion (1986), United States v. Claudio (1986)
35 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 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. § 3141 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 951 (Controlled Substances Import and Export Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 955A
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Ohio State Board of Education v. Reed · Easton v. United States · United States v. Jessup · United States v. Delker
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n light of the Act's mandate for informality and the need for speed at a point where neither the defense nor the prosecution is likely to have marshalled all its proof, the government as well as the defendant should usually be able to proceed by some type of proffer where risk of flight is at issue”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]n the informal evidentiary framework of a detention hearing, the methods used to scrutinize government proffers for reliability must lie within the discretion of the presiding judicial officer, informed by an awareness of the high stakes involved.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The rules concerning the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consideration of information at the hearing.”); United States v. Acevedo-Ramos, 755 F.2d 203, 204 (1st Cir.1985) (holding that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.