United States v. Olano’s Empirical Analysis
62 F.3d 1180 · 1995
Citation profile
81 federal appellate · 9 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 174 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably United States v. Love (1998), Williams v. Woodford (2002)
81 federal appellate · 9 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 1006 · 18 U.S.C. § 1014 · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1346 · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 656
Relies on United States v. Olano · Bruton v. United States · Arizona v. Fulminante · United States v. Cronic · Pinkerton v. United States
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 174 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plain error requires (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affecting substantial rights; and only then may we exercise our discretion to notice the error if (4) it "seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." We invoke our discretion under the plain error rule cautiously and only in "exceptional circumstances." Such circumstances may include cases in which "`a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result,'" i.e., a defendant is actually innocent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[the defendant] has not demonstrated ... why he could not have provided his attorney with the benefit of this expertise prior to or during trial, without himself acting as co-counsel.... He thus has not established any 'special need' requiring the district court to permit him to participate at trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“where such comment is extensive, where an inference of guilt from silence is stressed to the jury as a basis for the conviction, and where there is evidence that could have supported acquittal.”
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.