United States v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis
280 F.3d 318 · 2002
Citation profile
84 federal appellate · 19 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 413 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Kemp (2007), United States v. Lockett (2005)
84 federal appellate · 19 district · 4 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3237 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Apprendi v. New Jersey · United States v. Olano · Illinois v. Gates · Glasser 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 413 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“denial of a motion to suppress for clear error as to the underlying factual findings and exercise[] plenary review of the District Court’s application of the law to those facts.” United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 336 (3d Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Riddick, 156 F.3d 505, 509 (3d Cir.1998)). We review a denial of a motion to compel”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'there is a genuine issue of material fact with regard to proper venue,'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Fed.R.Evid. 702 (2002).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.