United States v. Campos’s Empirical Analysis
306 F.3d 577 · 2002
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Crenshaw (2004), United States v. Rice (2006)
62 federal appellate · 5 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Great State Beverages, Inc. v. Wenners · Attwood v. Singletary · Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp. · Caso v. United States · White v. Pence
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial based upon the weight of the evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court. While the district court’s discretion is quite broad — it can weigh the evidence, disbelieve witnesses, and grant a new trial even where there is substantial evidence to sustain the verdict — there are limits to it. Unless the district court ultimately determines that a miscarriage of justice will occur, the jury’s verdict must be allowed to stand.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[A]n abuse of discretion occurs when a relevant factor that should have been given significant weight is not considered, when an irrelevant or improper factor is considered and given significant weight, or when all proper and no improper factors are considered, but the court in weighing the factors commits a clear error of judgment.” United States v. McNeil, 90 F.3d 298 , 300 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1034 , 117 S.Ct. 596 , 136 L.Ed.2d 524 (1996) (internal citations omitted); accord, Kern v. TXO Prod. Corp., 738 F.2d 968 , 970 (8th Cir.1984).”
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.