United States v. Morley’s Empirical Analysis
199 F.3d 129 · 1999
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably United States v. Givan (2003), United States v. Cross (2002)
15 federal appellate · 9 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
Relies on Huddleston v. United States · United States v. Scarfo · United States v. Sampson · United States v. Himelwright · United States v. Faust
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ctually we were under 404(b), `It may however be admissible for other purposes such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`no link of which may be the inference that the defendant has the propensity to commit the crime charged,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Yjou've heard evidence of ... the alleged act of the defendant obtaining notary seals on bonds of ... Mr. DeStefano. There are no charges pending in this case with respect to that. You must not consider any of that evidence in deciding if the defendant committed the acts charged in the indictment. However, you may consider this evidence for other very limited purposes. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt from other evidence in this case that the defendant did commit the acts charged in the indictment, then you may consider evidence of similar alleged conduct on another occasion ... to determine whether the defendant had the state of mind or intent necessary to commit the crime or crimes charged in the present indictment.... [Y]ou are only permitted to use that other conduct to show his intent ... in the present indictment. They are not permitted to show that he is — his general character. That would be an improper use of that evidence.”
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.