United States v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis
824 F.2d 1430 · 1987
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2016 · most notably Gomez v. United States (1989), Peretz v. United States (1991)
38 federal appellate · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Wainwright v. Witt
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e insist upon clear congressional expression when the reach of [a] claimed reading provokes issues regarding constitutionally mandated spheres of governmental power.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] judge may also designate a magistrate to conduct hearings, including evi-dentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion excepted in subparagraph (A), of applications for posttrial relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Such concern plainly rejects the view that jury selection is a preliminary and essentially ministerial act. At the least it is an essential instrument to the delivery of a defendant’s constitutionally secured right to a jury trial rooted in the commands of due process, if not the trial guarantees of the sixth amendment and section 2 of article III themselves.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.