United States of America v. Sylvester Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
189 F.3d 1201 · 1999
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Summers (2005), United States v. Whitney (2000)
38 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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
Relies on United States v. Dunnigan · Williams v. United States · United States v. Jones · United States v. Esparsen · United States v. Padilla
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The jury, as fact finder, has discretion to resolve all conflicting testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw inferences from the basic facts to the ultimate facts. However, we may not uphold a conviction obtained by piling inference upon inference. The evidence supporting the conviction must be substantial and do more than raise a suspicion of guilt.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“To be guilty of aiding and abetting the commission of a crime, the defendant must willfully associate himself with the criminal venture and seek to make the venture succeed through some action of his own.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[s]ubstitution-of-counsel standards are imposed by the Sixth Amendment and require that to warrant a substitution of counsel, the defendant must show good cause, such as a conflict of interest, a complete breakdovm of communication or an irreconcilable conflict which leads to an apparently unjust verdict. The district court is under a duty to make formal inquiry into the defendant’s reasons for dissatisfaction with present counsel when substitution of counsel is requested.”
2 later decisions 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.