Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 28 F.3d 218 - United States v. O'Connor

United States v. O'Connor’s Empirical Analysis

28 F.3d 218 · 1994

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
March 2020
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently March 2020

17 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

1601994200020102020decided

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. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 2

Relies on United States v. Sepulveda · United States v. Rivera · United States v. Brandon · United States v. Dietz · United States v. Gifford

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

  1. “facts stated in presentence reports are deemed admitted if they are not challenged in the district court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““As we have repeatedly held, Fed. R.Crim.P. 30 means what it says. A party may not claim error in the judge’s charge to the jury unless that party ‘objects’ after the judge gives , the charge but before the ‘jury retires,’ and, when objecting the party must ‘stat[e] ... distinctly the matter to which that' party objects and the grounds of that objection.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he trial court may instruct the jury concerning willful blindness when a defendant claims a lack of knowledge, the facts support an inference of defendant's conscious course of deliberate ignorance, and the instruction, taken as a whole, cannot be misunderstood by a juror as mandating the inference of knowledge.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.