Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 953 F.2d 240 - United States v. Cameron

United States v. Cameron’s Empirical Analysis

953 F.2d 240 · 1992

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
March 2025
most recently cited

24 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Ford (1992), Watkins v. Kassulke (1996)

24 federal appellate ·

2501992200020102020decided

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. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 455

Relies on Green v. United States · Abney v. United States · United States v. Jorn · Arizona v. Washington · Wade v. Hunter

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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We review de novo a district court's denial of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “is that the State with all its resources and power should not he allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the overriding interest in the evenhanded administration of justice requires that we accord the highest degree of respect to the trial judge's evaluation of the likelihood that the impartiality of one or more jurors may have been affected by [an] improper comment”
    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.