Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 343 F.3d 849 - United States v. Wright

United States v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

343 F.3d 849 · 2003

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
November 2025
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2025 · most notably United States v. Abboud (2006), United States v. Franklin (2005)

27 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions

460200320102020decided

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. § 1958 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282 · 18 U.S.C. § 846

Relies on United States v. Olano · Illinois v. Gates · Johnson v. United States · United States v. Marion · Carnegie 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The vest was evidence of Wright’s involvement with the Avengers motorcycle club; the holster indicated Wright’s possession of a gun; the address books contained the names and phone numbers of co-conspirators including Chase and other Avengers; the newspaper article about the murder of Moore showed that Wright had an interest in the crime; the documents linked Wright to his alias “Arthur Anderson”; and the letter from Chase described the connection of Wright and Chase to the drug conspiracy-”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A] question is typically not hearsay because it does not assert the truth or falsity of a fact. A question merely seeks answers and usually has no factual content.”) (citing cases); accord, United States v. Thomas, 453 F.3d 838, 845 (7th Cir.2006); Long, 284 U.S.App.D.C. at 413 , 905 F.2d at 1580 . 33 . 414 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir.2005). 34 . Id. at 1300. 35 . Id. 36 . See id. (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “`To establish plain error, a defendant must show (1) that an error occurred in the district court; (2) that the error was plain, i.e., obvious or clear; (3) that the error affected defendant's substantial rights; and (4) that this adverse impact seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.'”
    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.