Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 445 F.3d 73 - United States v. Lizardo

United States v. Lizardo’s Empirical Analysis

445 F.3d 73 · 2006

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
1
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably United States v. Heredia (2007), United States v. Griffin (2008)

47 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

320200620102020decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Crawford v. Washington · Harris v. United States

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. “It is entirely up to you to determine whether [Fermin] deliberately closed his eyes to [a] fact and, if so, what inference if any should be drawn from that fact. However, it is important to bear in mind that mere negligence or mistake or ignorance in failing to learn a fact is not sufficient. There must be a deliberate effort to remain ignorant of the fact. If after considering all of the evidence you have a reasonable doubt that [Fermín] acted with the requisite culpable state of mind, then you must find [Fermín] not guilty.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of [opinions or inferences] is limited to [those which are] (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “resolv[ing] all questions of credibility and reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict.”
    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.