Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 281 F.3d 228 - United States v. Weaver

United States v. Weaver’s Empirical Analysis

281 F.3d 228 · 2002

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
3
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably United States v. Rashad (2003), United States v. McGill (2016)

22 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

170200220102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Apprendi v. New Jersey · United States v. Olano · Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc

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

  1. “trial counsel cannot be expected to argue his own ineffectiveness in a motion for a new trial”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The theory presumably is that trial counsel cannot be expected to argue his own ineffectiveness in a motion for a new trial, and so we ought to allow new counsel to argue it on appeal.... [Rule 33] requires new trial motions to be filed within 7 days of the verdict, yet our practice of remanding to the district court for an evidentiary hearing has the effect of greatly extending that time limit.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Plain error assumes that the court should have intervened sua sponte because the error was so obvious.”
    1 later decision 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.