Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 577 F.3d 672 - United States v. Deitz

United States v. Deitz’s Empirical Analysis

577 F.3d 672 · 2009

Citation profile

128
cited by 128 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 128 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Delgado (2012), United States v. Richards (2011)

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions

1100200920102020decided

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. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 851 (§ 411 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1863

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Gall v. United States · Crawford v. Washington · Chimel v. California · Puckett v. United States

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

  1. “The indictment or information may charge a defendant in separate counts with 2 or more offenses if the offenses charged — whether felonies or misdemeanors or both — are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Retroactive misjoinder occurs where joinder was proper initially because of a conspiracy allegation, but where later developments . . . appear to render the initial joinder improper.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “consolidation for trial appears to prejudice a defendant[.]”
    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.