Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 126 F.3d 310 - United States v. Hastings

United States v. Hastings’s Empirical Analysis

126 F.3d 310 · 1997

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
3
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. Hammoud (2004), McDonald v. Village of Winnetka (2004)

24 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

4001997200020102020decided

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

Relies on United States v. Armstrong · United States v. Mezzanatto · United States v. Berrios · United States v. Russell · United States v. Peskin

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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In determining a suitable and effective sanction, a court must weigh the reasons for the government's delay and whether it acted intentionally or in bad faith; the degree of prejudice, if any, suffered by the defendant; and whether any less severe sanction will remedy the prejudice and the wrongdoing of the government.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When a court sanctions the government in a criminal case for its failure to obey. court orders, it must use the least severe sanction which will adequately punish the government and secure future compliance.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[D]efendants are similarly situated when their circumstances present no distinguishable legitimate prosecutorial factors that might justify making different prosecutorial decisions with respect to them.”
    3 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.