Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 613 F.2d 1373 - United States v. Jimenez

United States v. Jimenez’s Empirical Analysis

613 F.2d 1373 · 1980

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
4
states following
May 2014
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably United States v. Beasley (1987), United States v. Richardson (1985)

48 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

3401980199020002010decided

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. § 3500 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Santoni v. United States · United States v. Beechum · Acosta v. United States · Ahtanum Irrigation District v. United States · United States v. Jackson

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

  1. “[although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by consideration of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “depleted the extrinsic offense of any relevance which could have outweighed the peril of jury prejudice”
    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.