United States v. Schemenauer’s Empirical Analysis
394 F.3d 746 · 2005
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (§ 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Burks v. United States · Cheney v. United States District Court for District of Columbia · Richardson v. United States · Bauman v. United States District Court · United States v. Bishop
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Angwin’s argument is without merit.... Given Vincente-Morales’ testimony that he expected that he would have to pay for his transportation once he arrived in Los Angeles, the substantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and the lack of any other possible explanation for Angwin’s conduct, the evidence was more than sufficient for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Angwin committed the offense for the purpose of private financial gain.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Richardson held that a second trial following a hung-jury mistrial does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if, at the time the second trial begins, no court has ruled the government’s first-trial evidence insufficient. Richardson also held that appellate courts may no longer exercise jurisdiction over interlocutory insufficiency appeals taken before a second trial has begun.”
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.