States v. Stein’s Empirical Analysis
233 F.3d 6 · 2000
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably United States v. Brennan (2003), United States v. Vega Molina (2005)
27 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 state decisions
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 Hamling v. United States · Malloy v. Hogan · Baxter v. Palmigiano · Garrity v. State of New Jersey · Blumenthal 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Respondent's silence in Baxter was only one of a number of factors to be considered by the finder of fact in assessing a penalty, and was given no more probative value than the facts of the cases warranted; here, refusal to waive the Fifth Amendment privilege leads automatically and without more to imposition of sanctions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“could have had good reason to fear disbarment if she did not testify is not the same as being faced with automatic disbarment for failure to testify”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... On or about November 25, 1999 in the Judicial District of Puerto Rico defendant, Jose Amado Nunez, intentionally did traffic in goods (or services), to wit, eight hundred eighty seven (887) decals in his luggage. The decals had the seal of the Puerto Rico Treasury Department (Departamento de Hacienda) with approximately fifty (50) different sets of serial numbers. The serial numbers were repeated and/or duplicated within the fifty (50) different sets of decals, and knowingly used counterfeit marks on and in connection with such goods (or services), that is, 887 decals, which counterfeit marks were identical with and substantially indistinguishable from the genuine marks in use and registered for those goods (or services) on the principal register in the United Sates Patent and Trademark Office, and the use of which marks was likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, and to deceive, [in] violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2320 . (Docket #1).”
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.