United States v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis
279 F.3d 392 · 2002
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably United States v. Davis (2002), United States v. Tristan-Madrigal (2010)
43 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · Braverman v. United States · Crisp v. Rubin · Colonial Village, Inc. v. Spann · Anderson 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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity (a criminal plan, scheme, endeavor, or enterprise undertaken by the defendant in concert with others, whether or not charged as a conspiracy), all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to determine the defendant’s accountability for the conduct of others under [U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) ], the court must first determine the scope of the criminal activity the particular defendant agreed to jointly undertake (i.e., the scope of the specific conduct and objectives embraced by the defendant’s agreement).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“make particularized findings with respect to both the scope of the defendant's agreement [to engage in jointly undertaken criminal activity] and the foreseeability of his co-conspirators' conduct before holding the defendant accountable”
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.