United States v. Hughes’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.3d 557 · 2002
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Price (2005), State v. Muhm (2009)
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 471 (Counterfeit Deterrence Act of 1992) · 18 U.S.C. § 472 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Bruton v. United States · Huddleston v. United States · Zafiro v. United States · Harris v. United States · Braverman v. United States
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“); United States v. Mietus, 237 F.3d 866 , 873 (7th Cir.2001) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the evidence is directed towards a matter other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged such as motive, intent, plan, knowledge or identity; (2) the evidence is similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter in issue; (3) the evidence is sufficient to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the similar acts; and (4) the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Additionally, ... a duplicitous indictment may expose a defendant to other adverse effects including improper notice of the charges against him, prejudice in shaping of evidentiary rulings, in sentencing, in limiting review on appeal, [and] in exposure to double jeopardy.”
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.