United States v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis
957 F.2d 296 · 1992
Citation profile
25 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2008 · most notably United States v. Saunders (1992), United States v. Price (1993)
25 federal appellate ·
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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · United States v. Briscoe · United States v. Herrera · United States v. Ocampo
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“You have heard testimony that Joe Mitchell has received benefits from the government in connection with this ease. You may give his testimony such weight as you feel it deserves, keeping in mind that it must be considered with caution and great care. The court also told the jury that: You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and of the weight to be given to the testimony of each of them. In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account his or her intelligence, his or her ability and opportunity to observe, his or her age, his or her memory, his or her manner while testifying, any interest, bias or prejudice he or she may have, and the reasonableness of his or her testimony considered in the light of all the evidence in the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) was the informant an addict at the time of the trial, not when the alleged transactions occurred; (2) was [his] addiction subject to cross-examination; (3) was the jury instructed that the addict’s testimony should be particularly scrutinized; and (4) was the addict’s testimony corroborated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous only if, after reviewing the evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
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.