United States v. McQueen’s Empirical Analysis
108 F.3d 64 · 1997
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably United States v. Story (2006), United States v. Pielago (1998)
22 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1623 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Harvey · United States v. Carter · United States v. Peglera · United States v. Navejar
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he Government’s failure to argue the terms of [the plea agreement] to the district court at the sentencing hearing constituted a breach of the plea agreement. And because violations of plea agreements on the part of the government serve not only to violate the constitutional rights of the defendant, but directly involve “the honor of the government, public confidence in the fair administration of justice, and the effective administration of justice in a federal scheme of government,” we hold that the Government’s beach constituted plain error.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because a defendant's fundamental and constitutional rights are implicated when he is induced to plead guilty by reason of a plea agreement, our analysis of the plea agreement or a breach thereof is conducted with greater scrutiny than in a commercial contract (citation omitted). When reviewing a breached plea agreement for plain error, therefore, we must establish whether the breach was "so obvious and substantial that failure to notice and correct it affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings" (citation omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“so obvious and substantial that failure to notice and correct it affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings”
2 later decisions 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.