Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 49 F.3d 447 - United States v. Hare

United States v. Hare’s Empirical Analysis

49 F.3d 447 · 1995

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
4
states following
April 2023
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably United States v. Edelmann (2006), United States v. Davis (2009)

29 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

2101995200020102020decided

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. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 982 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986)

Relies on United States v. Mezzanatto · United States v. Stroud · United States v. Jorgensen · United States v. Lombardi · United States v. Grant

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. “[s]tatements voluntarily offered either before any plea negotiation has begun or after a plea agreement has been reached cannot be considered statements made 'in the course of plea discussions' within the meaning of the exclusionary rules.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he plain language of [Rule] 410 excludes 'only those statements which are made in the course of plea discussions.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “prohibits anyone from knowingly engaging 'in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property that is of a value greater than $10,000 and is derived from specified unlawful activity.'”
    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.