Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 148 F.3d 824 - United States v. Cusimano

United States v. Cusimano’s Empirical Analysis

148 F.3d 824 · 1998

Citation profile

100
cited by 100 later decisions
1
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

64 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably United States v. Syme (2002), United States v. Hernandez (2003)

64 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

6501998200020102020decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on United States v. Olano · Berkery v. Commissioner · Bergstrom v. Dalkon Shield Trust · Solventes Y Quimica de Nicaragua, S.A. Solquimisa v. Weaver · United States v. Berkowitz

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

  1. “A constructive amendment to an indictment occurs when either the government . . . the court . . . or both, broadens the possible bases for conviction beyond those presented by the grand jury.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a mistake so serious that but for it the [defendant] probably would have been acquitted.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"(1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute; (3) the error affected the appellant's substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means it affected the outcome of the district court proceedings; and (4) the error seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings."”
    2 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.