Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 310 F.3d 709 - United States v. Peter

United States v. Peter’s Empirical Analysis

310 F.3d 709 · 2002

Citation profile

84
cited by 84 later decisions
6
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably State v. Dunn (2016), United States v. Seher (2009)

25 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

580200220102020decided

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 Bonner v. City of Prichard · Bailey v. United States · United States v. Cotton · Bousley v. United States · Spencer v. Kemna

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

  1. “rule of Meacham , that a district court lacks jurisdiction when an indictment alleges only a non-offense, controls”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “as a matter of law, ... outside the sweep of the charging statute.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “as required for the offense of mail fraud. Id. at 711. Therefore, Peter had pled guilty to the predicate act of alleged mail fraud in the very form held in Cleveland not to constitute an offense under § 1341. Id. at 715. The Peter Court concluded that the defendant's claim that his conduct was never a crime under § 1341 was a jurisdictional error and could not be procedurally defaulted. Id. at 711-15. In reaching this conclusion, the Court in Peter relied on pre- Cotton precedent and concluded that”
    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.