United States v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis
153 F.3d 809 · 1998
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2517 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Burns v. United States · United States v. Maldonado-Rivera · United States v. Thompson · United States v. Moore · United States v. Corbitt
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Furthermore, sales on credit, in combination with frequent and repeated transactions, justify an aider and abettor instruction. See, e.g., United States v. Blankenship, 970 F.2d 283, 287 (7th Cir.1992); United States v. Kasvin, 757 F.2d 887, 891 (7th Cir.1985). This same evidence would permit a jury to infer that Rivera did not have a mere buyer/seller arrangement with Bradley.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a proper foundation ... may be established in two ways: a chain of custody ... or alternatively, other testimony could be used to establish the accuracy and trustworthiness of the evidence.”
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.