Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 F.3d 1 - United States v. Tavares

United States v. Tavares’s Empirical Analysis

21 F.3d 1 · 1994

Citation profile

89
cited by 89 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 10 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 89 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Old Chief v. United States (1997), United States v. Wacker (1995)

55 federal appellate · 10 district · 12 state decisions

5801994200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Massachusetts District Court)

Relationships

Applies 16 U.S.C. § 3372 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924

Relies on Freeman v. Package Machinery Co. · Wagenmann v. Adams · United States v. Doherty · United States v. Pirovolos · United States v. Spletzer

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

  1. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the fact of a prior conviction ... is the only information that Congress has deemed of consequence concerning the defendant's criminal record”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he prosecution ordinarily may not be forced to eliminate gruesome details of a killing ... or the degree of malevolence exhibited by the defendant through a defense-proffered stipulation.”
    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.