Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 359 F.3d 247 - United States v. Plotts

United States v. Plotts’s Empirical Analysis

359 F.3d 247 · 2004

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
May 2025
most recently cited

13 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Luepke (2007), United States v. Mornan (2005)

13 federal appellate ·

130200420102020decided

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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3583 · 18 U.S.C. § 3603 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on United States v. Olano · United States v. Barbosa · United States v. Reyna · United States v. Barnes · United States v. Evans

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

  1. “Under plain error review, we may grant relief if (1) the District Court committed an “error,” (2) it was “plain,” and (3) it affected “substantial rights” of the defendant. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). “A deviation from a legal rule is [an] ‘error.’ ” United States v. Russell, 134 F.3d 171 , 180 (3d Cir.1998) (citation omitted). It is “plain” when “ ‘clear’ or ‘obvious.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). In order for an error to affect “substantial rights,” it must have been “prejudicial”; in other words, “it must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 . If these requirements are satisfied, we should exercise our discretion to grant relief if the error “ ‘seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Id. at 736 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 (citation omitted); see also Adams, 252 F.3d at 284-85 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “is not the sort of 'isolated' or 'abstract' error that we might determine does not impact the 'fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “ancient in origin, and it is the type of important safeguard that helps assure the fairness, and hence, legitimacy, of the sentencing process.”
    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.