United States v. Bridges’s Empirical Analysis
175 F.3d 1062 · 1999
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably United States v. Simpson (2005), United States v. Mathis (2000)
21 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 471 (Counterfeit Deterrence Act of 1992) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Taylor v. United States · Koon v. United States · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Williams v. United States · United States v. Rusher
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[An upward] departure is warranted when the criminal history category does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the defendant’s past criminal conduct or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes. The accuracy of such a prediction about future behavior can only be enhanced by permitting the court to compare past offenses to exactly what it is the defendant has just done.... A judge with such license is surely more likely to be able to discern a pattern in a defendant’s behavior than one who must peer with blinders on.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We must uphold a district court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous[ ] and must give due deference to its application of the Guidelines to the facts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nothing in the text of this commentary bars a court from looking behind an offense to examine a defendant’s conduct. Quite the contrary, the language ... directs the court to determine not whether the defendant’s “offenses” are similar but whether his “conduct” is. Moreover, the preceding sentence directs that in determining whether a pri- or offense is within the time period within which criminal history is calculated, the court is to look to whether “any relevant conduct” of the instant offense took place within that period. An examination of the defendant’s relevant conduct, therefore, is perfectly consistent with the commentary’s text.”
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.