Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 184 F.3d 961 - United States v. Honken

United States v. Honken’s Empirical Analysis

184 F.3d 961 · 1999

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
December 2023
most recently cited

51 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably United States v. Salazar-Samaniega (2004), United States v. Saunders (2003)

51 federal appellate ·

7901999200020102020decided

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

Relies on Stinson v. United States · Chapman v. United States · Jeffers v. United States · Rutledge v. United States · United States v. Hopper

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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he timing and nature of the defendant’s obstructive conduct, the degree of his acceptance of responsibility, whether his obstruction of justice was an isolated and early incident, whether he voluntarily terminated his obstructive conduct, whether he admitted and recanted his obstructive conduct, and whether he assisted in the investigation of his and others’ offenses.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In April 1993, a grand jury in the Northern District of Iowa indicted ap-pellee for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. After the disappearance of one or more prospective prosecution witnesses, the government dismissed the indictment.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[c]onduct resulting in an enhancement under § 3C1.1 ... ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct. There may be, however, extraordinary cases in which adjustments under both §§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1 may apply.”
    5 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.