United States v. Stuart’s Empirical Analysis
22 F.3d 76 · 1994
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably United States v. Stewart (1999), United States v. Monaco (1994)
10 federal appellate · 7 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952
Relies on Stinson v. United States · Houltin v. United States · Texas v. Louisiana · Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. v. City of Chicago · Duvall 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nevertheless, we are left with the definite impression that, notwithstanding the proper application of the Guidelines, a nine-level enhancement under these circumstances may well overstate both the degree of Stuart’s criminality and his need to be corrected. At most, Stuart agreed to deliver stolen bonds on two occasions, for a total payment of $ 2,000. If on remand Stuart requests a downward departure, the district court may well find there to be little relationship between Stuart’s role in the offense and the value of the stolen property he was carrying.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The government may prove that a person acted knowingly by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that that person deliberately closed his eyes to what otherwise would have been obvious to him. One cannot avoid responsibility for an offense by deliberately ignoring what is obvious.”
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.