Agushi v. Duerr’s Empirical Analysis
196 F.3d 754 · 1999
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably United States v. Lucas (2004), United States v. Walton (2000)
22 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Graham v. Connor · Huddleston v. United States · United States v. Stevens · United States of America v. Noe Mancillas · Palmquist v. Selvik
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]vidence regarding other crimes is admissible for defensive purposes if it 'tends, alone or with other evidence, to negate [the defendant's] guilt of the crime charged against him.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[ajppellants who challenge evidentiary rulings of the district court are like rich men who wish to enter the Kingdom: their prospects compare with those of camels who wish to pass through the eye of the needle.” United States v. Coleman, 179 F.3d 1056 , 1061 (7th Cir.1999) (internal quotations omitted) (brackets in original). Because we give “special deference” to the rulings of the trial judge[,] [a defendant] obviously “carries a heavy burden.” Palmquist v. Selvik, 111 F.3d 1332 , 1339 (7th Cir.1997). In this context, we will not reverse unless “the record contains no evidence on which [the district court] rationally could have based [its] decision, or where the supposed facts found are clearly erroneous.” Id. (internal quotes omitted). Moreover, if an error in the admission or exclusion of evidence was committed during the trial, the court will grant a new trial only if the error had a “substantial influence over the jury,” and the result reached was “inconsistent with substantial justice.” Id. (internal quotes omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“admission against third parties of evidence of 'crimes, wrongs or acts’ if used to show 'motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity of absence of mistake or accident.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Aboumoussallem, 726 F.2d 906 , 911-12 (2d. Cir. 1984)); but see Agushi v. Duerr, 196 F.3d 754 , 760 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that Rule 404(b)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wynne v. Renico · State v. Vargas
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.