United States v. Eakes’s Empirical Analysis
783 F.2d 499 · 1986
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably United States v. Whitfield (2009), United States v. Westbrook (1997)
42 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 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)
Relies on Raphan v. United States · Lombard v. Marcera · Reavis v. Antinore · Central Intelligence Agency v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for the Unification of World Christianity · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The fact that various conspirators successfully imported and sold the substance three times indicates that they dealt with cocaine and not a counterfeit product”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Evidence of the physical appearance of the substance involved in the transaction, evidence that the substance produced the expected effects when sampled by someone familiar with the illicit drug, evidence that the substance was used in the same manner as the illicit drug, testimony that a high price was paid in cash for the substance, evidence that transactions involving the substance were carried on in secrecy or deviousness, and evidence that the substance was called by the name of the illegal narcotic by the defendant or others in his presence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[n]o such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court in accordance with this paragraph shall be excludable under this subsection unless the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.”
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.