Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 539 F.3d 32 - United States v. Lipscomb

United States v. Lipscomb’s Empirical Analysis

539 F.3d 32 · 2008

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
1
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably United States v. Cortés-Cabán (2012), United States v. Rodríguez-Lozada (2009)

25 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions

420200820102020decided

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. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3582 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 851 (§ 411 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Almendarez-Torres v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois · Kimbrough v. United States · Massaro v. United States · United States v. Salvucci

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

  1. “[d]efendants challenging convictions for insufficiency of evidence face an uphill battle on appeal.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “we examine the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. We do not assess the credibility of a witness, as that is a role reserved for the jury. Nor need we be convinced that the government succeeded in eliminating every possible theory consistent with the defendant’s innocence. Rather, we must decide whether that evidence, including all plausible inferences drawn therefrom, would allow a rational factfinder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the charged crime.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “carries the burden of establishing that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the area searched or ... the items seized.”
    2 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.