United States v. Oplinger’s Empirical Analysis
150 F.3d 1061 · 1998
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Combs v. Coyle (2000), State v. Leach (2004)
30 federal appellate · 25 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 1621 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Griffin v. California · Doyle v. Ohio · Fisher 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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen a citizen is under no official compulsion whatever, either to speak or to remain silent,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Com. v. Molina · Owens v. State“[p]rior to custody or indictment here, the government made no effort to compel [the defendant] to speak [and therefore] the constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination did not come into play”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Lee · Com. v. Molina“[T]he primary trait that distinguishes a person in a position of trust from one who is not is the extent to which the position provides the freedom to commit a difficult-to-deteet wrong. If a person is in a relationship such that any attempt by a defendant to abuse the relationship could be simply or readily noticed by the second party to the relationship, presumably the two persons have not formed a “trust” relationship. Conversely, if one party is able to take criminal advantage of the relationship without fear of ready or quick notice by the second party, the second party has clearly placed a level of trust in the first.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.