Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 484 F.3d 762 - United States v. Mitchell

United States v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

484 F.3d 762 · 2007

Citation profile

125
cited by 125 later decisions
March 2024
most recently cited

35 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 125 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably United States v. Whitfield (2009), United States v. Brown (2008)

35 federal appellate ·

800200720102020decided

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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Lindh v. Murphy · Richardson v. Marsh · Zafiro v. United States · United States v. Mares · United States v. Beechum

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

  1. “[ejvidenee of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. ...”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict, and we determine whether a rational jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] jury may find a defendant guilty of conspiring with unknown persons where a sufficient overlap of personnel occurs — i.e., if a pivotal figure ... directs and organizes the illegal activity, and has extensive dealings with each of the parties. Thus, parties who knowingly participate with core conspirators to achieve a common goal may be members of an overall conspiracy, even in the absence of contact with other conspirators.”) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 9 .”
    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.