Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 557 F.2d 1002 - United States v. Buechler

United States v. Buechler’s Empirical Analysis

557 F.2d 1002 · 1977

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
April 2001
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2001 · most notably Walczak v. State (1985), Durst v. United States (1978)

37 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

3601977198019902000decided

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. § 3651 · 18 U.S.C. § 5010 · 18 U.S.C. § 656

Relies on United States v. Atkinson · Dorszynski v. United States · Corallo v. United States · Silber v. United States · United States v. Stoehr

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

  1. “(t)he court may correct an illegal sentence at any time”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “did not broaden the authority of the Court to impose restitution as a condition of probation but merely reaffirmed the principle that a court has the authority to order restitution as a condition of probation in an amount exceeding the amount of loss attributable to the particular count for which conviction was had where a defendant agrees to make restitution as part of the plea agreement.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We also need not address the question whether restitution in an amount exceeding that involved in the count to which a guilty plea is entered may be imposed as a condition of probation, where the defendant explicitly agrees to it as one of the terms of a plea bargain in a multiple count indictment.”
    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.