United States v. Cuch’s Empirical Analysis
79 F.3d 987 · 1996
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably United States v. Simmonds (1997), United States v. Burch (2000)
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 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. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 2242 · 18 U.S.C. § 2244 · 18 U.S.C. § 666 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Buckley v. Valeo · Teague v. Lane · Murray v. Carrier · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the prospect that the invalidation of a final conviction could well mean that the guilty will go unpunished due to the impracticability of charging and retrying the defendant after a long interval of time. Wholesale invalidation of convictions rendered years ago could well mean that convicted persons would be freed without retrial, for witnesses no longer may be readily available, memories may have faded, records may be incomplete or missing, and physical evidence may have disappeared. Furthermore, retroactive application would surely visit substantial injustice and hardship upon those litigants who relied upon jurisdiction in the federal courts, particularly victims and witnesses who have relied on the judgments and the finality flowing therefrom. Retroactivity would also be unfair to law enforcement officials and prosecutors, not to mention the members of the public they represent, who relied in good faith on binding federal pronouncements to govern their prosecutorial decisions. Society must not be made to tolerate a result of that kind when there is no significant question concerning the accuracy of the process by which judgment was rendered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“a case in which a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari elapsed or a petition for certiorari finally denied.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The magistrate judge's analysis partakes of the Blackstonian common law view that courts do no more than discover the law. Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 622-23 [, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1733-34 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 ] (1965). "The Blackstonian view ruled English jurisprudence and cast its shadow over our own "through much of our jurisprudential histoiy. Id. at 624 [, 85 S.Ct. at 1734-35 ], But American law, drawing, as it does from experience, gradually recognized that "such a rule was out of tune with actuality.” Id.; see also id. at 629[, 85 S.Ct. at 1737 ]. In time the Supreme Court admitted that "[t]he past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration,” Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 374 [, 60 S.Ct. 317, 318 , 84 L.Ed. 329 ] (1940). "Questions of rights claimed to have become vested, of status, of prior determinations deemed to have finality and acted upon accordingly, of public policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and of its previous application, demand examination.” Id. In short, while a judicial decision is in effect, "it is ... an existing juridical fact.” Linkletter, 381 U.S. at 624 [, 85 S.Ct. at 1734-35 ] (discussing Austmian view). This latter view is now firmly established in the federal courts....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.