Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 271 F.3d 93 - United States of America v. Alex Vazquez

United States of America v. Alex Vazquez’s Empirical Analysis

271 F.3d 93 · 2001

Citation profile

189
cited by 189 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

88 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 189 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably United States v. Perez (2002), United States v. Thomas (2001)

88 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions

1330200120102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Olano · Almendarez-Torres 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 189 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Under that standard, “before an appellate court can correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affect[s] substantial rights. If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “the sentencing error (imposing a sentence beyond the prescribed statutory maximum) is inextricably intertwined with a trial error (failing to submit an element of the offense to the jury). On the one hand, the trial error exists only because of the sentencing error. On the other hand, the sentencing error cannot occur without the trial error.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Beyond the Prescribed Statutory Maximum.”
    3 later decisions 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.