United States v. Rust’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably United States v. Hardison (2007), United States v. Stephens (2009)
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 10 U.S.C. § 1102 · 10 U.S.C. § 801 (Military Justice Act of 1968) · 10 U.S.C. § 831 · 10 U.S.C. § 832 · 10 U.S.C. § 892
Relies on Payne v. Tennessee · James J. Kevlik v. David B. Goldstein, Town of Derry · United States v. Ponder · United States v. Schaltenbrand · United States v. Costanzo
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The phrase “directly relating to or resulting from the offenses” imposes a “higher standard” than “mere relevance.” United States v. Gordon, 31 MJ 30, 36 (CMA 1990). . . . Evidence qualifying for admission under RCM 1001(b)(4) must also pass the test of Mil.R.Evid. 403 ...; see United States v. Wilson, 35 MJ 473 , 476 n. 5 (CMA 1992). A “military judge has wide discretion” in applying Mil.R.Evid. 403. United States v. Yanke, 23 MJ 144, 145 (CMA 1987).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Evidence is admissible on sentence which shows “the specific harm caused by the defendant.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 825 , 111 S.Ct. 2597, 2608 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991). Nevertheless, an accused is not “responsible for a never-ending chain of causes and effects.” United States v. Witt, 21 M.J. 637 , 640 n. 3 (A.C.M.R.1985), pet. denied, 22 M.J. 347 (C.M.A.1986).”
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.