Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 579 F.2d 707 - United States v. Fatico

United States v. Fatico’s Empirical Analysis

579 F.2d 707 · 1978

Citation profile

283
cited by 283 later decisions
13
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

158 federal appellate · 5 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 283 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably United States v. Beaulieu (1990), Proffitt v. Wainwright (1982)

158 federal appellate · 5 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 13 states

106019781980199020002010decided

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. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 18 U.S.C. § 659

Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell · Bruton v. United States · Chambers v. Mississippi · Gagnon v. Scarpelli

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

  1. “No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “where there is good cause for the nondisclosure of his identity and there is sufficient corroboration by other means.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Due Process does not prevent use in sentencing of out-of-court declarations by an unidentified informant where there is good cause for the nondisclosure of his identity and there is sufficient corroboration by other means. Thus, the trial court erred in excluding the agent’s testimony about the informer’s declaration once the Government represented that it would produce the specified corroboration.”
    2 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.