United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
605 F.3d 82 · 2010
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 3742
Relies on Stinson v. United States · Foley v. Connelie · United States v. Love · United States v. Reneslacis · United States v. Pugh
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'authoritative' unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or 'is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline.' ” United States v. Johnson, 605 F.3d 82 , 83 (D.C.Cir.2010) (quoting Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 , 38, 113 S.Ct. 1913 , 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993)). 4 . The definition of”
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.