Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 274 F.3d 655 - United States v. Thomas

United States v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

274 F.3d 655 · 2001

Citation profile

318
cited by 318 later decisions
2
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

173 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 318 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably United States v. Crosby (2005), United States v. Gaskin (2004)

173 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions

2610200120102020decided

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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · United States v. Olano · Johnson v. United States · Neder v. United States · Griffith v. Kentucky

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

  1. “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.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “affect[ed] ... defendant's substantial rights.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. With that exception, ... “[i]t is unconstitutional for a legislature to remove from the jury the assessment of facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed. It is equally clear that such facts must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.””
    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.