United States v. Marcus’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
171 federal appellate · 3 district · 55 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (§ 112 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) · 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (§ 112 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000)
Relies on United States v. Olano · Gideon v. Wainwright · Arizona v. Fulminante · Puckett v. United States · Johnson 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 563 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute; (3) the error affected the appellant’s substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means it affected the outcome of the district court proceedings; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
79 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the [trial] court's attention.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“any possibility, no matter how unlikely,”
3 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.