Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 208 F.3d 72 - United States v. Zichettello

United States v. Zichettello’s Empirical Analysis

208 F.3d 72 · 2000

Citation profile

155
cited by 155 later decisions
6
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

58 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 155 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably United States v. Gaskin (2004), State v. Skakel (2006)

58 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions

910200020102020decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Glasser v. United States · Kyles v. Whitley · United States v. Young · Pereira 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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(i) “the ivitness actually committed perjury ”; 19 (ii) “the alleged perjury was material”; (in) “the government knew or should have known of the alleged perjury at the time of trial”; and (iv) “the perjured testimony remained undisclosed during trial.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A] prerequisite to a section 3B1.1(a) enhancement is that the district court makes specific factual findings that (i) the defendant was an organizer or leader, and (ii) the criminal activity involved five or more participants, or was otherwise extensive.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Correction or Modification of the Record. (1) If any difference arises about whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the district court, the difference must be submitted to and settled by that court and the record conformed accordingly. (2) If anything material to either party is omitted from or misstated in the record by error or accident, the omission or misstatement may be corrected and a supplemental record may be certified and forwarded: (A)on stipulation of the parties; (B) by the district court before or after the record has been forwarded; or (C) by the court of appeals. (3)All other questions as to the form and content of the record must be presented to the court of appeals.”
    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.