United States v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis
830 F.2d 596 · 1987
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably The Procter & Gamble Company v. Bankers Trust Company, Bt Securities Corporation, the McGraw Companies, Inc. (1996), Schledwitz v. United States (1999)
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · United States v. Nixon · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Pell v. Procunier · Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... [T]he doctrine of separation of powers — a unique feature of our constitutional system designed to insure that political power is divided and shared— would be undermined if the judicial branch should attempt to control political communication between a congressman and his constituents. It would tend to undermine the representative nature of the democratic process and the legislator’s responsibility to the electorate to account for his actions .... A representative’s legislative role is not limited to formal speech and debate in Congress but includes communication with the electorate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Government, as a litigant, has a legitimate interest in seeing that cases in which it believes a conviction is warranted are tried before a tribunal which the Constitution regards as most likely to produce a fair result.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Appellant-petitioner... has, however, erroneously argued that the right to a fair trial afforded by the Sixth Amendment inures to the sole benefit of a criminal defendant.... Notwithstanding the position advanced by appellant-petitioner herein, existing legal precedent defines the Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial trial as a right that inures not only to the sole benefit of a defendant, but rather one that inures equally to the state as the representative of the people. The public has an overriding interest that justice be done in a controversy between the government and individuals and has the right to demand and expect "fair trials designed to end in just judgments.”... The concept of a fair trial applies to both the prosecutor and the defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.