United States v. Scheetz’s Empirical Analysis
293 F.3d 175 · 2002
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Manigan (2010), United States v. Abu Ali (2008)
30 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Chimel v. California · Whren v. United States · Koon v. United States · California v. Hodari D.
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the degree to which the prosecutor’s remarks had a tendency to mislead the jury and to prejudice the defendant; (2) whether the remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) absent the remarks, the strength of competent proof introduced to establish the guilt of the defendant; (4) whether the comments were deliberately placed before the jury to divert attention to extraneous matters; (5) whether the prosecutor’s remarks were invited by improper conduct of defense counsel; and (6) whether curative instructions were given to the jury.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“) (citing United States v. Morin, 949 F.2d 297, 300 (10th Cir.1991) (holding that, because marijuana has a distinct smell,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“to determine whether the conduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.”
3 later decisions 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.