Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 616 F.2d 1295 - United States v. Grassi

United States v. Grassi’s Empirical Analysis

616 F.2d 1295 · 1980

Citation profile

149
cited by 149 later decisions
3
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

125 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 149 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. Phillips (1981), United States v. Kopituk (1982)

125 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

115019801990200020102020decided

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. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 960 · 21 U.S.C. § 963

Relies on Glasser v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Blumenthal v. United States · Castor v. United States · Lombard v. Marcera

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

  1. “[T]he judge must decide at the conclusion of the James hearing whether the independent evidence linking the defendant to the conspiracy is substantial. If a coconspirator’s extrajudicial declaration is admitted into evidence, the judge must reconsider its admissibility at the conclusion of the trial. His second decision, however, is to be made by a higher standard: whether the prosecution, through independent evidence, has demonstrated the defendant’s participation in a conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The essence of conspiracy is the agreement to engage in concerted unlawful activity.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It is not crucial to the existence of a conspiracy that each conspirator participate in every phase of the criminal venture. Nor is it necessary for each conspirator to have knowledge of the identity and role of each of his coconspirators. The unity essential to a conspiracy is derived from the assent of its members to contribute to a common enterprise. Seemingly independent transactions may be revealed as parts of a single conspiracy by their place in a pattern of regularized activity involving a significant continuity of membership. (Citations omitted.)”
    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.