United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
33 F.3d 866 · 1994
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Brooks (1997), United States v. Vega (1995)
42 federal appellate · 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 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 31 U.S.C. § 5313 · 31 U.S.C. § 5322 · 31 U.S.C. § 5324 (§ 1354 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Glasser v. United States · Carnegie v. United States · Zafiro 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Defendant’s] first contention — that Rat-zlaf requires reversal of the § 371 conviction — is misplaced because the government did not have to demonstrate that the defendants violated the antistructuring laws. Ratzlaf s holding concerning the meaning of “willfully violating” in the antistructur-ing laws, therefore, has no bearing on the defendants’ § 371 convictions; § 371 contains no such language.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he government may allege the violation of [a] specific statute to demonstrate a conspiracy to defraud the United States; but such an allegation is only a way of consummating the conspiracy which, like the use of a gun to effect a conspiracy to murder, is purely ancillary to the substantive offense.”
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.