United States v. Ripinsky’s Empirical Analysis
109 F.3d 1436 · 1997
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably United States v. Ladum (1998), United States v. Sablan (1997)
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. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United States v. Olano · United States v. Lopez · Schmuck v. United States · Wickard v. Filburn · Yagow v. United States
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“evidence, however, and may therefore he admitted for all purposes, when the evidence concerning the other act and the evidence concerning the crime charged are 'inextricably linked.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ha[d] a minimal effect on interstate commerce that, through repetition by others similarly situated, could have a substantial effect on interstate commerce”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Evidence should not be treated as "other crimes”
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.