Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 553 F.3d 654 - United States v. Eagle

United States v. Eagle’s Empirical Analysis

553 F.3d 654 · 2009

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
November 2024
most recently cited

28 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably United States v. Feemster (2009), United States v. Lazarski (2009)

28 federal appellate ·

310200920102020decided

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. § 113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553

Relies on Gall v. United States · United States v. Mashek · Stupakoff v. Otto (GmbH & Co. KG) · United States v. Perkins · United States v. Gray

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

  1. “When contemplating and structuring such a departure, the district court should consider both the nature and extent of a defendant’s criminal history. In deciding the likelihood that a defendant may commit other crimes, a court may take into account any evidence of obvious incorrigibility and conclude that leniency has not been effective.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a ritualistic exercise in which [the sentencing court] mechanically discusses each criminal history category it rejects en route to the category that it selects.” United States v. Levi, 229 F.3d 677 , 679 (8th Cir.2000), quoting United States v. Day, 998 F.2d 622 , 625 (8th Cir.1993).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “reliable information indicates that the defendant's criminal history category substantially under-represents the seriousness of the defendant's criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes.”
    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.