United States v. Cervantes’s Empirical Analysis
542 F.2d 773 · 1976
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently July 2004 · most notably United States v. Conforte (1980), United States v. Aguilar (1989)
35 federal appellate · 2 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Roviaro v. United States · Harris v. New York · Oregon v. Hass · Cruz v. Hauck · Parham v. Cortese
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) It must appear from the motion that the evidence relied on is, in fact, newly discovered . . . ; (2) the motion must allege facts from which the court may infer diligence on the part of the movant; (3) the evidence relied on must not be merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) must be material to the issues involved; and (5) must be such as, on a new trial, would probably produce an acquittal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“properly rejected [the proposed instruction] as not applicable to the facts of this case.”
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.