United States v. Mora’s Empirical Analysis
293 F.3d 1213 · 2002
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 7 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 209 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably 204 Ill. 2d 426 - People v. De La Paz (2003), United States v. Price (2005)
59 federal appellate · 7 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 856 (§ 416 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Apprendi v. New Jersey · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Haines v. Kerner · Gideon v. Wainwright
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 209 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Apprendi clarifies that certain questions that were previously thought to be properly determined by the court must now be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While this rule arguably increases the accuracy of convictions, it is a rule that simply shifts the fact-finding duties from an impartial judge to a jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Apprendi merely clarified and extended the scope of a pre-existing right the right to have all convictions supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Smart v. State · State v. Meade“[w]e generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal,”
2 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.