Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 479 F.3d 511 - United States v. Glover

United States v. Glover’s Empirical Analysis

479 F.3d 511 · 2007

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
2
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably United States v. Liddell (2008), United States v. Oriedo (2007)

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

150200720102020decided

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. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 994

Relies on United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Darden v. Wainwright · United States v. Paladino · United States v. Foster

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

  1. “[T]he operations of drug dealers are generally an appropriate subject for expert testimony. Because the clandestine nature of narcotics trafficking is likely to be outside the knowledge of the average layman, law enforcement officers may testify as experts in order to assist the jury in understanding these transactions.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[The statistical evidence] assisted the jury in understanding that ... certain objects are not particularly conducive to finding prints. [The defendant] did not have an opportunity to wipe his prints from the gun, nor was there evidence that he wore glovbs. Without [the fingerprint technician’s] testimony, the jury may not have understood how [the defendant] could have possessed the weapon without leaving prints.”
    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.