Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 155 F.3d 180 - United States v. Walker

United States v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

155 F.3d 180 · 1998

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
4
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably United States v. Brennan (2003), United States v. Lore (2005)

33 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

560199820002010decided

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. § 1791

Relies on United States v. Olano · United States v. Young · Lawn v. United States · United States v. Nersesian · United States v. Pungitore

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

  1. “prosecutor may argue in the negative that the assertions made by defense counsel that a witness is lying are not supported by the testimony in the record.”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “reasonable response to improper attacks by defense counsel.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “is merely a method of prefacing an argument and does not by itself constitute vouching. The phrase fails to meet the vouching standard because it does not assure the jury that the witness is credible, but instead asks the jury to find that the witness was credible. This is proper argument. [ Id. at 188 .] X. We conclude that the other points raised in defendant's briefs are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). The judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. NOTES [1] Lombardino was known by the nickname”
    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.