United States v. Two Eagle’s Empirical Analysis
633 F.2d 93 · 1980
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably United States v. Miller (1982), United States v. McCrady (1985)
44 federal appellate · 3 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. § 1153
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Patterson v. United States · Barnes v. United States · Texas v. Louisiana · Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A conviction may rest solely on circumstantial evidence, such as that presented in this case. United States v. Young, 568 F.2d 588 , 589 (8th Cir.1978); United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346 , 1360 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914 , 97 S.Ct. 2174 , 53 L.Ed.2d 224 (1977). Such evidence is ‘intrinsically as probative as direct evidence,’ United States v. Taylor, 599 F.2d 832 , 838 (8th Cir.1979), and accordingly, is considered under the standard for determining the sufficiency of direct evidence. Durns v. United States, 562 F.2d 542 , 546 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 959 , 98 S.Ct. 490 , 54 L.Ed.2d 319 (1977).””
1 later decision 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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“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 considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Iron Shell
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.