United States v. Passaro’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.3d 207 · 2009
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably United States v. Lighty (2010), United States v. Green (2010)
21 federal appellate · 1 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 113 · 18 U.S.C. § 7
Relies on Graham v. Connor · United States v. Nixon · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A district court commits reversible error ... only when the instruction (1) was correct; (2) was not substantially covered by the court’s charge to the jury; and (3) dealt with some point in the trial so important, that failure to give the requested instruction seriously impaired the defendant’s ability to conduct his defense.... Moreover, we do not view a single instruction in isolation; rather we consider whether taken as a whole and in the context of the entire charge, the instructions accurately and fairly state the controlling law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“other United States ... entities in foreign States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Indeed, criminal defendants commonly complain that other persons are more worthy of criminal prosecution. But our constitutional system leaves it to the discretion of the Executive Branch to decide who will face prosecution. Unless a defendant provides “clear evidence” to overcome the presumption that a government prosecutor has acted laiofully and without discrimination — a “particularly demanding” standard — he cannot demonstrate a constitutional violation for selective prosecution.”
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.