United States v. Robbins’s Empirical Analysis
613 F.2d 688 · 1979
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2021 · most notably United States v. Riley (1981), United States v. Marin-Cifuentes (1989)
37 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
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. § 912
Relies on Singleton v. Wulff · Bullock v. United States · Eisenstadt v. Baker · Davis v. Alaska · Texas v. Louisiana
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a material issue on which other crimes evidence may be admissible has been raised; (2) the proffered evidence is relevant to that issue; (3) the evidence of other crimes is clear and convincing. In addition, to be admissible on such issues as intent, knowledge, or plan, the other crimes evidence must relate to wrongdoing “similar in kind and reasonably close in time to the charge at trial.” Finally, the evidence otherwise admissible under Rule 404(b) may be excluded under Fed. R.Evid. 403, “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. 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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“sets out two distinct crimes: the first, where one 'pretends to be an officer or employee acting under authority of the United States and acts as such,' and the second, where one 'in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value.'”
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.