United States v. Tyndall’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.3d 877 · 2008
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 2022
13 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 2242 · 18 U.S.C. § 2243
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Kimbrough v. United States · Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc · United States v. Dunnigan · United States v. Watts
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] district court may use a defendant's relevant conduct in sentencing if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct occurred, even if that conduct formed the basis of a criminal charge on which a jury acquitted the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A mid-trial disclosure violates Brady only if it comes too late for the defense to make use of it.”); United States v. Warren, 454 F.3d 752 , 760 (7th Cir.2006) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Powell v. Quarterman
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.