Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 F.3d 21 - United States v. Ortiz

United States v. Ortiz’s Empirical Analysis

23 F.3d 21 · 1994

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
November 2014
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably United States v. Tibolt (1995), United States v. Montas (1994)

39 federal appellate · 5 district ·

350199420002010decided

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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Carnegie v. United States · Bourjaily v. United States · Scharffe v. Perkins · Kuntz v. City of Dayton

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

  1. “[E]rror rises to this level only when it is so shocking that [it] seriously affect[ed] the fundamental fairness and basic integrity of the proceedings conducted below.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “there would be no basis for finding that defendant did not foresee that at least five kilograms of cocaine were involved in his crimes”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) the evidence was unknown or unavailable to the defendant at the time of trial; (2) failure to learn of the evidence was not due to lack of diligence by the defendant; (3) the evidence is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (4) it will probably result in an acquittal upon retrial of the defendant.”
    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.