United States v. Hocking’s Empirical Analysis
841 F.2d 735 · 1988
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently March 2007 · most notably United States of America v. Chucks Emuegbunam (2001), Wilson v. O'Leary (1990)
32 federal appellate · 2 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 United States v. Cronic · Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · United States v. Robinson · Berman v. United States · Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Motion Before Submission to Jury.... The court on motion of a defendant or of its own motion shall order the entry of judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment or information after the evidence on either side is closed if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses.... (b) Reservation of Decision on Motion. If a motion for judgment of acquittal is made at the close of all the evidence, the court may reserve decision on the motion, submit the case to the jury and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. (c)Motion After Discharge of Jury. If the jury returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict, a motion for judgment of acquittal may he made or renewed within 7 days after the jury is discharged or within such further time as the court may fix during the 7-day period....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he court may not extend the time for taking any action under Rules 29, 33, 34 and 35, except to the extent and under the conditions stated in them.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Occasionally courts hold that despite Rule 45(b) and similar provisions in other rules, courts may act on untimely motions when district judges induce parties to rely to their detriment on erroneous extensions of time. See Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 , 84 S.Ct. 397 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964); cf. Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139, 143 , 84 S.Ct. 1689, 1692 , 12 L.Ed.2d 760 (1964). These cases are of uncertain continuing authority, for the reasons discussed in Sonicraft, Inc. v. NLRB, 814 F.2d 385, 387 (7th Cir.1987), and Bailey v. Sharp, 782 F.2d 1366, 1369-74 (7th Cir.1986) (concurring opinion). Even if hearty, however, these cases offer no aid. Nothing in the record suggests that the district judge misled Hocking’s lawyer. Any error was generated by the lawyer himself; the district court simply granted a motion. As it turns out, the judge had no power to grant the motion — and for all we can tell, if he had denied it (as he was required to), Hocking had no way to file a timely motion, for he sought the second extension on the last day allowed by the first extension. The district court’s denial of the motion would not have avoided the predicament in which Hocking finds himself. Id. at 737.”
1 later decision 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.