Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 363 F.3d 25 - United States v. Martin

United States v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis

363 F.3d 25 · 2004

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
4
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably United States v. Fornia-Castillo (2005), United States v. Troy (2010)

21 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

240200420102020decided

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. § 2315 · 18 U.S.C. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3561 · 18 U.S.C. § 3562 · 18 U.S.C. § 3563 · 18 U.S.C. § 3583 · 18 U.S.C. § 3585

Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Koon v. United States · Griffith v. Kentucky · Stinson 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “outcome [that] is consistent with an important but simple proposition: one who receives stolen money and fails to report that income in a tax return is generally more culpable than one who merely receives stolen money.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “do not require that all of the conduct be `fully accounted for'; rather, it is enough that conduct `embodied' in the second offense is `treated as an adjustment' to the other offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “even when one count embodies conduct treated as an adjustment to a second count, the counts cannot be properly grouped under § 3D1.2(c) unless they are `closely related.'”
    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.