United States v. Ingraham’s Empirical Analysis
832 F.2d 229 · 1987
Citation profile
101 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Huddleston v. United States (1988), United States v. Zannino (1990)
101 federal appellate · 15 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 3062 · 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 875
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Simmons v. United States · United States v. Salerno · Bibby v. United States · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The law is not so struthious as to compel a criminal jury to ignore that which is perfectly obvious.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the juiy, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. [a] defendant cannot be identified as the perpetrator of the charged act simply because he has at other times committed the same commonplace variety of criminal act except by reference to the forbidden inference of propensity. The question for the court[, therefore, must be] whether the characteristics relied upon are sufficiently idiosyncratic to permit an inference of pattern for purposes of proof.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the evidence need not preclude every reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with guilt”
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.