Tse v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1955 · 18 U.S.C. § 1959 · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2255 · 18 U.S.C. § 892 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (§ 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Hill v. Lockhart · United States v. Frady · Stone v. Powell · United States v. Lopez
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the time of plea negotiations, this Court concludes that it was reasonable for Attorney O’Dea to believe that the United States Attorney could not prosecute Tse on additional counts. Attorney O’Dea could reasonably have concluded that the Government Secretariat of Hong Kong would not waive the doctrine of specialty and thus that Tse could be prosecuted only on Count 16.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tse v. United States
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.