United States v. Mapp’s Empirical Analysis
170 F.3d 328 · 1999
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2019 · most notably Buford v. United States (2001), Mapp v. United States (1999)
40 federal appellate · 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1959 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Massiah v. United States · United States v. Lopez · McNeil v. Wisconsin · United States v. Watts
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“bear a strong relationship to racketeering activity that affects interstate commerce[.]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“about the subject matter of those charges unless his counsel is present.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In these circumstances, we believe that Moore’s challenge to the district court’s decision to give this supplemental jury instruction lacks merit. Notably, Moore does not claim that the supplemental jury instruction deviated from the charges contained in the indictment. Nor does he maintain that there was any legal error in the content of the instruction. Instead, Moore argues only that the instruction “changed the government’s theory of liability” on the section 1959 charge and that he might have asserted additional defenses at trial if he had known that such an instruction would be given. But this contention is unpersuasive because, even now, Moore is silent as to what those defenses might be. Finally, by giving him the opportunity to respond by presenting additional evidence or argument to the jury, the district court carefully avoided causing Moore any arguable prejudice in the giving of the supplemental instruction.”
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.