United States v. Eccles’s Empirical Analysis
850 F.2d 1357 · 1988
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Spillone (1989), Derrick v. Rs Peterson (1990)
55 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Townsend v. Sain · Malloy v. Hogan · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Marks v. United States
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[precedent ... compels us to allow the government to perfect jurisdiction in this case by filing the appropriate certificate after oral argument. We recognize, however, that a general rule excusing the government from filing a certificate until after oral argument would eviscerate the statutory requirement that the United States attorney certify that the appeal has not been taken to delay trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3731 . We therefore follow the lead of the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Herman, 544 F.2d 791 , 794 (5th Cir.1977), and “serve notice upon [the government] that we will entertain no future section 3731 appeals unless the appropriate certificate is incorporated in the record on appeal.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Conversely, post-conviction review remains available under Mechanik and Benjamin where the defendant has alleged prosecutorial misconduct that does implicate substantial rights protected by the due process clause. Therefore, the defendant’s constitutional rights will not be violated by her inability to obtain interlocutory review of claims of misconduct before the grand jury.”
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.