United States v. Willis’s Empirical Analysis
102 F.3d 1078 · 1996
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Thompson (2006), United States of America v. Sylvester Anderson (1999)
32 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3559 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 21 U.S.C. § 851 (§ 411 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Burks v. United States · Pinkerton v. United States · Hamling v. United States · Nye & Nissen v. United States · Federal Communications Commission v. Home Box Office, Inc.
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the co-conspirator has criminal responsibility unless”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A member of a conspiracy who commits another crime during the existence or life of the conspiracy and who commits this other crime in order to further or somehow advance the goals or objectives of the conspiracy, may be found by you to be acting as the agent of the other members of the conspiracy. The illegal actions of this person in committing this other crime may be attributed to other individuals who are then members of the conspiracy. Under certain conditions, therefore, a defendant may be found guilty of this other crime even though he or she did not participate directly in the acts constituting that offense. If you find that the government has proven that a particular defendant is guilty of the conspiracy as charged in Count 1 of the indictment, beyond a reasonable doubt, you may also find that defendant guilty of the crimes alleged in Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment in which he or she is charged, provided that you find that the essential elements of that count as. defined in these instructions have been established beyond a reasonable doubt and, provided further, that you also find beyond a reasonable doubt, that: FIRST: the substantive offense of violating the Anti-Kickback statute as described in Counts 2 or 3 of the indictment was committed by a member of the conspiracy; SECOND: the substantive crime was committed during the existence or life of and in furtherance of the goals or objectives of the conspiracy; and THIRD: at the time that this substantive offense wa”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The escape phase of a crime is not ... an event occurring after the robbery. It is part of the robbery.”
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.