United States v. Jacobs’s Empirical Analysis
855 F.2d 652 · 1988
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably McCalden v. California Library Ass'n (1990), United States v. Barrera-Moreno (1991)
44 federal appellate · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 21 U.S.C. § 331 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 144 · 28 U.S.C. § 332 · 28 U.S.C. § 372
Relies on Oregon v. Kennedy · Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Pemberton · Edgar v. McVey Trucking Co. · Rosene v. United States · United States v. Simpson
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A district court may dismiss an indictment on any of three grounds: (1) due process, (2) inherent supervisory powers (protecting the integrity of the judicial process), and (3) statutory grounds.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because the drastic step of dismissing an indictment is a disfavored remedy, a district court may properly dismiss an indictment only if the prosecutorial misconduct (1) was flagrant, and (2) caused substantial prejudice to the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In cases involving prosecutorial misconduct which is neither flagrant nor prejudicial, a district judge can still sanction the misconduct, but the sanction must be proportionate to the misconduct.”
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.