Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 405 F.3d 696 - United States v. Lachowski

United States v. Lachowski’s Empirical Analysis

405 F.3d 696 · 2005

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
3
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2025

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

70200520102020decided

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

Relies on United States v. Olano · United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. · United States v. Ruiz-Gea · United States v. S.A. · United States v. Trigg

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

  1. “Usually, for an error to be plain, it must be in contravention of either Supreme Court or controlling circuit precedent. The lack of such precedent, however, does not prevent a finding of plain error if the error was, in fact, clear or obvious based on the materials available to the [trial] court. In the absence of controlling precedent of either this court or the Supreme Court, the [trial] court is granted more discretion under the plain error standard simply because the less guidance there is, the smaller the realm of decisions that would be clearly or obviously wrong under current law. There is ultimately, however, a limit to what the [trial] court can do, even under plain error review, and, for example, in the statutory construction context, it is possible that the construction of the statute proffered by the [trial] court departs so far from the text that it is clearly incorrect as a matter of law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In the absence of controlling precedent of either this court or the Supreme -Court, the district court is granted more discretion under the plain error standard simply because the less guidance there is, the smaller the realm of decisions that would be clearly or obviously wrong under current law.”
    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.