United States v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis
168 F.3d 263 · 1999
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Hough (2002), United States v. Taylor (2011)
40 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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
Relies on Bailey v. United States · Stinson v. United States · Soberon v. United States · Brewster v. Derwinski · Yagow 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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Rjemands ... can be either general or limited in scope. Limited remands explicitly outline the issues to be addressed by the District Court and create a narrow framework within which the District Court must operate.... General remands, in contrast, give the District Court authority to address all matters as long as remaining consistent with the remand.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he chain of intended events should be articulated with particularity. With sentencing issues, in light of the general principle of de novo consideration at re-sentencing, this court should leave no doubt in the district judge’s or parties’ minds as to the scope of the remand. The language used to limit the remand should be, in effect, unmistakable.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] limited remand must convey clearly the intent to limit the scope of the district court's review.”
4 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.