Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 138 F.3d 843 - United States v. Ailsworth

United States v. Ailsworth’s Empirical Analysis

138 F.3d 843 · 1998

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
4
states following
January 2023
most recently cited

44 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably United States v. McVeigh (1998), United States of America v. Dennis McClatchey (2000)

44 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

5001998200020102020decided

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 Kotteakos v. United States · Berger v. United States · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Allen v. United States · Francis v. Franklin

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

  1. “A variance arises when the evidence adduced at trial establishes facts different from those alleged in an indictment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Unnecessary or irrelevant statements in a verdict form may be disregarded as surplusage.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “there is no fatal variance where a defendant is convicted upon evidence which tends to show a narrower scheme than that contained in the indictment, provided that the narrower scheme is fully included within the indictment.”
    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.