United States v. E.V.’s Empirical Analysis
500 F.3d 747 · 2007
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2024
13 federal appellate ·
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Iowa Northern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 994
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Santobello v. New York · United States v. Forney · Margalli-Olvera v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Allowing the government to breach a promise that induced a guilty plea violates due process. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); [United States v.] Van Thournout, 100 F.3d [590,] 594 [ (8th Cir.1996) ]. Further, “with respect to federal prosecutions, the courts’ concerns run even wider than protection of the defendant’s individual constitutional rights — to concerns for the honor of the government, public confidence in the fair administration of justice, and the effective administration of justice in a federal scheme of government.” United States v. Jensen, 423 F.3d 851, 854 (8th Cir.2005) (internal citation omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were amended in 2002, and language similar to that contained in the 1999 version of Rule 11(e)(1)(C) is now found in Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C) (2007).” United States v. E.V., 500 F.3d 747 , 753 n. 9 (8th Cir.2007). The 2002 amendment to the provision made only”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the possible influence of the breach [was] confined by both the Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory restraints.” Id. Other courts have identified”
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.