United States v. Tulk’s Empirical Analysis
171 F.3d 596 · 1999
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably United States v. Allen (2001), Blodgett v. Commissioner (2005)
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Olano · Johnson v. United States · United States v. Mechanik · United States v. Solivan · United States v. Hernandez
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“need not conduct plain error review here because [defendant] deliberately waved his right to object”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[f]actors to consider in assessing prejudice include the cumulative effect of any misconduct[.]”
2 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.