Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 532 F.2d 1101 - United States v. Jeffers

United States v. Jeffers’s Empirical Analysis

532 F.2d 1101 · 1976

Citation profile

123
cited by 123 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
February 2008
most recently cited

79 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 123 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2008 · most notably Jeffers v. United States (1977), United States v. Phillips (1981)

79 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

6101976198019902000decided

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

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1955 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 144

Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Ashe v. Swenson · Iannelli v. United States · Sansone v. United States · Berger v. United States

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

  1. “(A) which are undertaken by such person in concert with five or more other persons with respect to whom such person occupies a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management, and (B) from which such person obtains substantial income or resources.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We need not lengthen this opinion by discussing the issue again at this time other than to reaffirm that a judge’s exposure to evidence presented at an earlier trial involving the same person does not per se create the kind of bias or prejudice which requires disqualification.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “requirement as setting some definite amount of profits that must be proven to obtain a conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise. * * * The”
    3 later decisions 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.