United States v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis
421 F.3d 503 · 2005
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits Trust v. Walgreen Co. (2011), United States v. Leahy (2006)
26 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Booker · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Batson v. Kentucky · Powers v. Ohio · Purkett v. Elem
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“courts considering Batson claims at the prima facie stage may consider apparent reasons for the challenges discernible on the record, regardless of whether those reasons were the actual reasons for the chalIenge” as part of the court's consideration of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“wilful act by the defendant with the specific intent to deceive or cheat, usually for the purpose of getting financial gain for one's self or causing financial loss to another.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“raising a suspicion that discrimination occurred.”
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.