United States v. Lang’s Empirical Analysis
644 F.2d 1232 · 1981
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably United States v. Mealy (1988), United States v. Doerr (1989)
48 federal appellate · 1 district · 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 3331 · 18 U.S.C. § 3334 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Calandra · Costello v. United States · Branzburg v. Hayes · Desist v. United States · Ohio v. Kentucky
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not provide clear evidence of the ineffective assistance of counsel,”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“not ripe for adjudication at the appellate level.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“The question of whether a jury has been properly instructed is to be determined not upon consideration of a single paragraph, sentence, phrase or word, but upon the charge as a whole.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.