Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 291 F.3d 30 - United States v. Gary

United States v. Gary’s Empirical Analysis

291 F.3d 30 · 2002

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
3
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2025

7 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions

130200220102020decided

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 Blackledge v. Perry · United States v. Goodwin · Alabama v. Smith · United States v. Jones · United States of America v. Yong Ho Ahn

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

  1. “[T]he doctrine [of prosecutorial vindictiveness] precludes action by a prosecutor that is designed to penalize a defendant for invoking any legally protected right available to a defendant during a criminal prosecution. A defendant may prove prosecutorial vindictiveness by submitting either 1 (i) evidence of the prosecutor’s actual vindictiveness or (ii) evidence sufficient to establish a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness, thereby raising a presumption the Government must rebut with objective evidence justifying its action. If the Government can produce objective evidence that its motive in prosecuting, the defendant was not vindictive, then the defendant’s only hope is to prove that the justification is pretextual and that actual vindictiveness has occurred.”
    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.