United States v. Monus’s Empirical Analysis
128 F.3d 376 · 1997
Citation profile
99 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 178 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably United States v. Barnett (2005), United States of America v. Anthony Gibbs Richard Hough Donneto Berry Chad Gibbs Robert Curtis Lamont Needum Antwan Woods (1999)
99 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Olano · Johnson v. United States · United States v. Young · Pinkerton 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 178 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“and that the District Court erred by relying solely on the presentence report as the factual basis for the enhancement. As Parrott observes, Rule 32(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the sentencing court to make either a factual finding for each contested factor in the presentence report, or to make a determination that no finding is necessary because the controverted matter will not be taken into account for sentencing. 1 After Parrott's sentencing hearing, our Court made it clear that Rule 32(c)(1)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“prohibits a court faced with a dispute over sentencing factors from adopting the factual findings of the presentence report without making factual determinations of its own.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(citations omitted)). An indictment is usually sufficient if it states the offense using the words of the statute itself, as long as the statute fully and unambiguously states all the elements of the offense. Hamling, 418 U.S. at 117; Monus, 128 F.3d at 388. At the same time, the Supreme Court has cautioned:”
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.