United States v. Balfany’s Empirical Analysis
965 F.2d 575 · 1992
Citation profile
68 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably 64 Ohio St. 3d 401 - State v. Dever (1992), United States v. Joe (1993)
68 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 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 Idaho v. Wright · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · White v. Illinois · Morrison v. Olson
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1)The statement must have circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to the twenty-three specified exceptions listed in rule 803; (2) The statement must be offered as evidence of a material fact; (3) The statement must be more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; (4) The general purposes of the Federal Rules and the interest of justice must best be served by the admission of the statement into evidence; ' (5) The proponent of the evidence must give the adverse party the notice specified within the rule.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although this portion of Bordeaux's hearsay testimony was potentially prejudicial, Balfany waived any objection to it because he elicited the damaging testimony through his own questioning of Bordeaux.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the district court could have (and probably should have) required the prosecution to establish that such information was unavailable from any other witness before permitting [the aunt] to testify.”
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.