United States v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis
571 F.3d 401 · 2009
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably United States v. Alaniz (2013), United States v. Grant (2012)
24 federal appellate · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Pinkerton v. United States · United States v. Beechum · Flores-Figueroa v. United States · United States v. Solis · United States v. Fields
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“agreement may be inferred from concert of action, voluntary participation may be inferred from a collection of circumstances, and knowledge may be inferred from surrounding circumstances.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Defense counsel: The guns. I suggested to you yesterday that they could have been bought on-line. And who could they have been bought by? Daniel Lee Garrett. We don't know much about him. We know very little about him. The Government could have brought him into court. The Government could have subpoenaed him. They could have found him. They could have brought you this missing witness. We know very little about him. Government: I'm going to object, Your Honor. The Court: What's your objection? Government: Both sides could have done that with subpoenas. Defense counsel: Of course both sides could have done it. But the point is it's the Government's burden to prove its case, and Mr. Costa knows that. The Court: Okay. Go on. Continue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[S]uffi-ciency of the evidence challenges are fact-specific, so we will not allow the appellant to adopt those arguments.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). 8 . Courts treat the RICO and VICAR definition of”
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.