United States v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
154 F.3d 772 · 1998
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably United States v. Hoffecker (2008), United States v. Smith (2000)
55 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. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 861 (§ 420 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Batson v. Kentucky · Bruton v. United States · Pinkerton v. United States · Bailey 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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a guilty verdict, we look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and accept as established all reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“which was not properly connected to him. During trial, defense counsel raised numerous objections to the inclusion of such evidence, all of which were overruled. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the drug evidence. 19 D. Sentencing. 20 Wadlington has raised numerous objections to his sentence. We will consider only those contentions which include”
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.