Docket No. 05-2619-Op(l)’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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

1. “The district court determined that the victims in this case were numerous and that the complexity of resolving a multitude of factual and causal issues would extend the sentencing process inordinately. As a basic predicate to this complexity, it is undisputed that there are potentially tens of thousands of victims of the [defendants’] crimes. Second, the amount of losses of those victims has not been established, and doing so would indisputably take a great deal of time.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 610 F. Supp. 2d 655 - United States v. Bp Products North America Inc.

2. “A victim may make a motion to re-open a plea or a sentence only if— (A) the victim has asserted the right to be heard before or during the proceeding at issue and such right was denied; (B) the victim petitions the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus within 14 days; and (C) in the case of a plea, the accused has not pled to the highest offense charged.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 935 F. Supp. 2d 1280 - United States v. Thetford

3. “In any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded th[ose] rights.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Rendon Galvis