United States v. Hasner’s Empirical Analysis
340 F.3d 1261 · 2003
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2020 · most notably United States v. Jiminez (2009), United States v. Magluta (2005)
28 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1346 · 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Kolender v. Lawson · Bourjaily v. United States · Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. United States · United States v. Brown · United States v. Bailey
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a conspiracy existed; (2) the conspiracy included the declarant and the defendant against whom the statement is offered; and (3) the statement was made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. In determining the admissibility of co-conspirator statements, the trial court may consider both the co-conspirator’s statements and independent external evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress properly exercised its power under the Commerce Clause[,] U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3[,] by regulating private and commercial carriers as instrumentalities of interstate commerce — even though the conduct took place entirely intrastate”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). For evidence to be admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:”
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.