United States v. Langford’s Empirical Analysis
802 F.2d 1176 · 1986
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably 139 Ill. 2d 264 - People v. Enis (1990), United States v. Rahm (1993)
62 federal appellate · 11 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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United States v. Wade · Barefoot v. Estelle · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · United States v. Nobles · Castor 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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“where a trial court learns of a possible incident of jury misconduct, it is preferable to hold an evidentiary hearing 'to determine the precise nature of the extraneous information,' [internal citations omitted] [however,] not every allegation that extraneous information has reached the jury requires a full-dress hearing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”
2 later decisions 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.