Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 224 F.3d 960 - United States of America v. Jeffrey Littlejohn

United States of America v. Jeffrey Littlejohn’s Empirical Analysis

224 F.3d 960 · 2000

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
3
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably United States of America v. Theodore John Kaczynski (2001), United States v. Patterson (2002)

16 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

350200020102020decided

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 United States v. Navarro-Botello · United States v. Keller · United States v. Wills · Carter v. McCarthy · United States v. Vences

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

  1. “[t]he distinction between `direct' and `collateral' consequences of a plea, while sometimes shaded in the relevant decisions, turns on whether the result represents a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant's punishment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]here the consequence is contingent upon action taken by an individual or individuals other [than] the sentencing court ... the consequence is generally 'collateral.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A ] plea of guilty entered by one fully aware of the direct consequences . . . must stand unless induced by threats (or promises to discontinue improper harassment), misrepresentation (including unfulfilled or unfulfillable promises), or perhaps by promises that are by their nature improper as having no proper relation- ship to the prosecutor's business (e.g. bribes).”
    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.