Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 32 F.3d 611 - United States v. Pierro

United States v. Pierro’s Empirical Analysis

32 F.3d 611 · 1994

Citation profile

185
cited by 185 later decisions
2
states following
October 2020
most recently cited

148 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 185 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably United States v. Teeter (2001), United States v. Saccoccia (1995)

148 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions

9701994200020102020decided

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. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553

Relies on United States v. Olano · Zafiro v. United States · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · United States v. Zannino · Juidice v. Vail

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

  1. “It is by now axiomatic that a criminal defendant cannot ground an appeal on a sentencing court's discretionary decision not to depart below the guideline sentencing range.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “this circumstance of which you speak has not been shown to exist in this case,”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[B]ecause mistrials are strong medicine, ... it is only rarely--and in extremely compelling circumstances--that an appellate panel, informed by a cold record, will venture to reverse a trial judge's on-the-spot decision that the interests of justice do not require aborting an ongoing trial.”
    4 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.