United States v. Gaines’s Empirical Analysis
170 F.3d 72 · 1999
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably State v. Singh (2002), United States v. Santos (2000)
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Olano · United States v. Young · Sullivan v. Louisiana · O'NEAL v. McAninch · Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc.
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The defendant] was not asked for his opinion of the detective's credibility. [He] was not required to choose between conceding the point or branding the detective as a liar. Asking whether another witness is 'wrong,' 'not accurate,' or 'mistaken' is very different from asking whether the witness is a liar.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Asking a witness whether a previous witness who gave conflicting testimony is 'mistaken' highlights the objective conflict without requiring the witness to condemn the prior witness a purveyor of deliberate falsehood, i.e., a 'liar.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Joseph v. State · M.H. v. State“If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’ testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) helpful to a clear under standing of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.