Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 474 U.S. 438 - United States v. Lane

United States v. Lane’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

2,144
cited by 2,144 later decisions
28
cited 28 times by the Supreme Court
31
states following
June 2026
most recently cited

1,153 federal appellate · 113 district · 262 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 2,144 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably United States v. Olano (1993), Brecht v. Abrahamson (1993)

1,153 federal appellate · 113 district · 262 state decisions — followed in 31 states

769019861990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedUnited States v. Lane (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 2111

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Chapman v. State of California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Bruton v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States

Cited together with Kotteakos v. United States · Chapman v. State of California · Jackson v. Virginia · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Strickland v. Washington

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 2,144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.'”
    42 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “designed to lull the victims into a false sense of security, postpone their ultimate complaint to the authorities, and therefore make the apprehension of the defendants less likely than if no mailings had taken place.”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.