United States v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
239 F.3d 829 · 2001
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably United States v. Smith (2002), United States v. Crenshaw (2004)
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1959 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 856 (§ 416 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1862 · 28 U.S.C. § 1863 · 28 U.S.C. § 1867
Relies on United States v. Olano · Johnson v. Zerbst · Irvin v. Dowd · Swain v. State of Alabama · United States v. Turkette
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] motion for severance is typically waived if it is not renewed at the close of evidence, primarily because it is then that any prejudice which may have resulted from the joint trial is ascertainable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“only when the record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the voter lists are used and supplemented where necessary, and if the procedures outlined in the bill are otherwise rigorously followed, it is no departure from the standards of the legislation that the qualified jury wheel, the venire or a'tray, or the jury itself, may not reflect a community cross-section. The act ... does not require that at any stage beyond the initial source list the selection procedure shall produce groups that accurately mirror community makeup. Thus, no challenge lies on that basis.”
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.