Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 256 F.3d 171 - United States v. Butch

United States v. Butch’s Empirical Analysis

256 F.3d 171 · 2001

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
1
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Cross (2002), United States v. Green (2010)

21 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

430200120102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Pennsylvania Western District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Huddleston v. United States · Soberon v. United States · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · Rewis 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) a proper evidentiary purpose; (2) relevance under Rule 402; (3) a weighing of the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect under Rule 403; and (4) a limiting instruction concerning the purpose for which the evidence may be used.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. ...”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “to help the jury understand the co-conspirator's role in the scheme”). 26 . As to the second Huddleston factor, relevance, Fed.R.Evid. 401 provides that”
    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.