Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 F.3d 254 - United States v. Nelson

United States v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

5 F.3d 254 · 1993

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
December 2010
most recently cited

21 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2010 · most notably United States v. Childress (1995), United States v. Garcia (1994)

21 federal appellate ·

260199320002010decided

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. § 1014 · 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 4241

Relies on Mitan v. United States · Liegl v. Webb · Dennis v. United States · United States v. Saunders · United States v. Schweihs

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. “a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Rule 704(b) ] excludes psychiatric/psychological opinion testimony on the question of whether a defendant had the capacity to form the requisite intent constituting an element of the charged offense while allowing relevant expert testimony detailing the defendant’s mental health history which might have a tendency to negate the prosecution’s proof on the issue of intent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone.”
    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.