Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 42 F.3d 1321 - United States v. Earls

United States v. Earls’s Empirical Analysis

42 F.3d 1321 · 1994

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
3
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably United States v. Danhauer (2000), United States v. Lang (1996)

29 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions

2901994200020102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on United States v. Leon · Scott v. United States · Nicholas v. United States · Joseph v. United States · Scherl v. Fisher

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

  1. “should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the gun was proximate to the drug offense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “`it is generally accepted procedure to use `and' in an indictment where a statute uses the word `or' . . . [because] [t]his assures that defendants are not convicted on information not considered by the grand jury.' Moreover, it is `entirely proper' for the district court to instruct the jury in the disjunctive, though the indictment is worded in the conjunctive”
    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.