United States v. Lancer’s Empirical Analysis
508 F.2d 719 · 1975
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. O'Neil (1993), United States v. Bazzano (1983)
29 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 state decisions
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. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 3651 · 18 U.S.C. § 500 · 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 659 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Rodriguez v. New York · Peyton v. Rowe · Pollard v. United States · Ex parte United States · Zerbst v. Kidwell
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 3651. Suspension of sentence and probation Upon entering a judgment of conviction of any offense not punishable by death or life imprisonment, any court having jurisdiction to try offenses against the United States when satisfied that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public as well as the defendant will be served thereby, may suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems best. Upon entering a judgment of conviction of any offense not punishable by death or life imprisonment, if the maximum punishment provided for such offense is more than six months, any court having jurisdiction to try offenses against the United States, when satisfied that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public as well as the defendant will be served thereby, may impose a sentence in excess of six months and provide that the defendant be confined in a jail-type institution or a treatment institution for a period not exceeding six months and that the execution of the remainder of the sentence be suspended and the defendant placed on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems best. Probation may be granted whether the offense is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. If an offense is punishable by both fine and imprisonment, the court may impose a fine and place the defendant on probation as to imprisonment. Probation may be l”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“An examination of Sections 3651 (imposition of probation) and 3653 (revocation of probation) reveals that Congress has clearly distinguished between the terms 'probation' and 'sentence.' Section 3651 permits the district court to 'suspend the ... execution of [the imposed] sentence and place the defendant on probation....' Section 3653 gives the district court the power to 'revoke the probation and require [the defendant] to serve the sentence [originally] imposed [but suspended under Section 3651], or any lesser sentence....'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Time spent in jail has not been counted as time spent on probation. In the absence of express direction by the sentencing court concerning the time when probation is to commence (and its relation to intervening jail time, parole, etc.), probation would be tolled during such periods and would resume upon release from confinement. 6”
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.