United States v. Delano’s Empirical Analysis
55 F.3d 720 · 1995
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably United States v. Salameh (1998), United States v. Thomas (2001)
43 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. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 666 · 33 U.S.C. § 1311
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Olano · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Ohio v. Roberts
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A constructive amendment occurs when the government’s presentation of evidence and the district court’s jury instructions combine to modify essential elements of the offense charged to the point that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than the one charged by the grand jury. A constructive amendment of an indictment is a per se violation of the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment that requires reversal even without a showing of prejudice to the defendant.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“consistently permitted significant flexibility in proof, provided that the defendant was given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“proof of an explicit promise to perform the official acts in return for the payment is not required.”
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.