United States v. Herrera’s Empirical Analysis
313 F.3d 882 · 2002
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably United States v. Kimler (2003), United States v. McDowell (2007)
30 federal appellate · 1 district · 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Olano · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · United States v. Young · McNally v. United States · Doerr v. Doerr
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen the defendant moves for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s case in chief, and defense evidence is thereafter presented but the defendant fails to renew the motion at the conclusion of all of the evidence, he waives objection to the denial of his earlier motion.... Accordingly, our review is limited to determining whether there was a manifest miscarriage of justice .... That occurs only where the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt or contains evidence on a key element of the offense [that is] so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Government conceded in its supplemental en banc brief that, for a defendant to be an “unlawful user” for § 922(g)(3) purposes, his “drug use would have to be with regularity and over an extended period of time”. The Government reiterated this at en banc oral argument: “We certainly wouldn’t charge one time use. It would have to be over a period of time”.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]here, as here, a defendant asserts specific grounds for a specific element of a specific count for a Rule 29 motion, he waives all others for that specific count.”
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.