United States v. Liboro’s Empirical Analysis
10 F.3d 861 · 1993
Citation profile
17 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 2013
17 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 294
Relies on McCarthy v. United States · Pelaes v. United States · Henderson v. Morgan · United States v. Timmreck · Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Liboro was sufficiently apprised of the charges and comprehended them”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, ... the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]ny variance from the procedures required by this Rule 11 which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.”
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.