Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 502 F.3d 931 - United States v. Mitchell

United States v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

502 F.3d 931 · 2007

Citation profile

118
cited by 118 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
January 2023
most recently cited

44 federal appellate · 6 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 118 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2023 · most notably Nursing Home Pension Fund, Local 144 v. Oracle Corp. (2010), Johnson v. Williams (2013)

44 federal appellate · 6 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 10 states

840200720102020decided

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 Arizona District Court)

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 113 · 18 U.S.C. § 1152 · 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 1513 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2111 · 18 U.S.C. § 2119

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Apprendi v. New Jersey · United States v. Olano · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Batson v. Kentucky

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

  1. “all the aggravating factor or factors found to exist sufficiently outweigh all the mitigating factor or factors found to exist to justify a sentence of death.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “an opinion about what they thought the jury's verdict should be.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “ke[eps] the jury focused on relevant mitigating evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.