Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 22 F.3d 1504 - United States v. Reddeck

United States v. Reddeck’s Empirical Analysis

22 F.3d 1504 · 1994

Citation profile

113
cited by 113 later decisions
3
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

69 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Deninno (1994), United States v. Hardwell (1996)

69 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

8801994200020102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1342 · 28 U.S.C. § 1654

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Faretta v. California · Ohio v. Roberts · Cupp v. Naughten · 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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the guidelines do not provide for an abstract factoring of a victim's residual and subjective 'satisfaction.' Calculation of lost value requires an objective standard, usually measured by 'fair market value.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the trial judge should conduct a thorough and comprehensive formal inquiry ... on the record to demonstrate that the defendant is aware of the nature of the charges, the range of allowable punishments and possible defenses, and is fully informed of the risks of proceeding pro se.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A district court's factual determination of loss under § 2F1.1 is reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, but the factors the court may consider are reviewed de novo.”
    2 later decisions 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.