United States v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis
479 F.3d 492 · 2007
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably United States v. Gomez (2014), United States v. Bell (2010)
35 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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
Relies on United States v. Booker · United States v. Olano · Opper v. United States · Michelson v. United States · United States v. Paladino
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the evidence is directed toward establishing a matter in issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged; (2) the evidence shows that the other act is similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter in issue; (3) the evidence is sufficient to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the similar act; and (4) the evidence has probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“And you know what the defendant told him: Yes, I’m a crack dealer. I’ve been a crack dealer for three to four years and I could have done this transaction, 2 1/4 ounces, on behalf of Michael Hatton, but I don’t remember, because my view of the inference, the inference being he’s done so many that he couldn’t remember this one.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The defendant] was on trial for only one delivery, on one day, to one person. Evidence of any prior unrelated drug sales was simply not necessary to complete the story of the single delivery on trial. Nor was it needed to avoid a conceptual or chronological void in the story of the [charged] delivery.”
1 later decision 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.