United States v. Eagle Hawk’s Empirical Analysis
815 F.2d 1213 · 1987
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably United States v. O'Connell (1988), United States v. Beckman (2000)
32 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974)
Relies on Harris v. McRae · Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. · Ferrante v. United States · United States v. Graham · United States v. Dichne
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[wjhere a witness is unquestionably important, and the government has a good faith belief that it will use that witness’s testimony at trial, that witness may be deemed “essential” for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. If, however, the witness’s anticipated testimony will be merely cumulative, or substantially irrelevant, that witness should be deemed non-essential.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) a proper request is made; (2) the elements of the lesser offense are identical to part of the elements of the greater; .(3) there is spme evidence which would justify ■ conviction of the lesser offense; (4) the proof on the element or elements differentiating the two crimes is sufficiently -in dispute so that the jury may consistently find the defendant innocent of the greater and guilty of 'the lesser included offense; and (5) there is mutuality, i.e., a charge may be demanded by either the prosecution or defense. •”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This court has previously indicated its doubt that [the] district court can grant judicial immunity. Even if the district court could grant judicial immunity, it should only do so where the evidence is clearly exculpatory. United States v. Hardrich, 707 F.2d 992 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 991 , 104 S.Ct. 481 , 78 L.Ed.2d 679 (1983). This power is to be sparingly exercised. Stewart v. Amaral, 626 F.Supp. 192 (D.Mass. 1985).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Starks
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.