United States v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
389 F.3d 424 · 2004
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Anders v. California · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Hill v. Lockhart
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There are at least four possible interpretations of the language “facts ... admitted by the defendant.” First, that language could refer to facts set forth in the indictment to which the defendant pled guilty. Second, it could refer to facts set forth in the written plea agreement entered into by the defendant. Third, it could be limited to the facts necessary to prove a violation of the offense charged in the indictment. Fourth, it could refer to facts admitted in the colloquy with the District Court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is well-established that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally not entertained on a direct appeal.” United States v. Thomas, 389 F.3d 424, 429 (3d Cir.2004); United States v. Headley, 923 F.2d 1079, 1083 (3d Cir.1991). Rather,”
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.