United States v. Klinger’s Empirical Analysis
128 F.3d 705 · 1997
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Reeves v. Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. (1998), United States v. Montgomery (1998)
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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. § 1014 · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986)
Relies on United States v. Olano · Johnson v. United States · Griffith v. Kentucky · Fertel-Rust v. Dane County Social Services · Voinovich v. Quilter
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affect[s] substantial rights. If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the general 'knowingly' instruction conflicted with and effectively eliminated the knowledge elements”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a district court must ordinarily determine whether a witness will invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege “in response to specific questions,” ... [the district court] may recognize a witness’s blanket privilege against self-incrimination if “the court, based on its knowledge of the case and of the testimony expected from the witness, can conclude that the witness could legitimately refuse to answer essentially all relevant questions.””
1 later decision 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.