Supreme Court· 12/10/1984
Luce v. United States
Citations
- 469 U.S. 38
- 105 S. Ct. 460
- 83 L. Ed. 2d 443
- 1984 U.S. LEXIS 163
- 16 Fed. R. Serv. 833
- 53 U.S.L.W. 4007
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that criminal defendant must testify to preserve claim of improper impeachment with prior conviction
- holding that a defendant must actually testify to preserve error on improper impeachment under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)
- holding that in order to raise and preserve for review the claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction, a defendant must testify
- holding that in order to raise and preserve for review the claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction, a defendant must testify
- holding that an appellate court cannot review the propriety of allowing impeachment that does not occur
- holding that to raise and preserve for appellate review a claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction, defendant must testify
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Burger, Stevens, Brennan, Marshall
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
809 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Gilbert B. Martinez v. Eddie Ylst, Superintendent, California Medical Facility SouthNinth Circuit· 1991-12-24· cited 9,433×
- People v. RodriguesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1994-12-01· cited 904×
- Dietz v. BouldinSupreme Court· 2016-06-09· cited 794×
- Ohler v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2000-05-22· cited 666×
- United States v. Paul A. BilzerianSecond Circuit· 1991-01-03· cited 610×
- United States v. TooheyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces· 2006-08-09· cited 536×
- G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat CorporationSeventh Circuit· 1989-03-27· cited 497×
- Geuder v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2003-09-10· cited 392×
- People v. RowlandCalifornia Supreme Court· 1992-12-17· cited 357×
- Sauceda v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2004-03-10· cited 329×
- State v. BoltonArizona Supreme Court· 1995-06-13· cited 326×
- Unnamed caseThird Circuit· 1997-09-26· cited 312×
- Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc.West Virginia Supreme Court· 1995-06-15· cited 308×
- State v. ThangWashington Supreme Court· 2002-03-07· cited 289×
- Jackson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1999-04-28· cited 276×
- Williams v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1996-05-09· cited 275×
- United States v. Carlo Scott BagleyNinth Circuit· 1985-09-26· cited 274×
- Hawthorne Partners v. AT & T TECHNOLOGIES, INC.N.D. Illinois· 1993-08-25· cited 274×
- People v. SimsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1993-06-28· cited 261×
- People v. GonzalezCalifornia Supreme Court· 2006-06-12· cited 258×
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- United States v. HastingSupreme Court· 1983-05-23· cited 1,999×
- Brooks v. TennesseeSupreme Court· 1972-06-07· cited 601×
- New Jersey v. PortashSupreme Court· 1979-03-20· cited 393×
- United States v. Mark Edwin CookNinth Circuit· 1980-01-14· cited 176×
- United States v. Edward Luce, Robert Kolofer, and James LuigsSixth Circuit· 1983-08-09· cited 127×
- United States v. Michael A. LipscombD.C. Circuit· 1983-03-15· cited 90×
- United States v. Victor KiendraFirst Circuit· 1981-11-09· cited 68×
- United States v. Clayton A. Fountain and Hugh Thomas ColombSeventh Circuit· 1981-05-18· cited 63×
- United States v. James Finis Toney, Jr.Fifth Circuit· 1980-04-09· cited 45×
Other cases named Luce v. United States
5 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.