Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 651 F.2d 268 - United States v. Perez

United States v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis

651 F.2d 268 · 1981

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
13
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. Causey (1987), United States v. Rodriguez (1989)

40 federal appellate · 22 state decisions — followed in 13 states

35019811990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Atkinson · Beausoliel v. United States · United States v. White · Moore 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It has long been the general rule that even a failure to swear a witness may be waived. This may occur either by knowing silence and an attempt to raise objection after verdict or by the mere failure of counsel to notice the omission before completion of the trial.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Whoever fraudulently or knowingly imports or brings into the United States, any merchandise contrary to law, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of such merchandise after importation, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law— Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Proof of defendant’s possession of such goods, unless explained to the satisfaction of the jury, shall be deemed evidence sufficient to authorize conviction for violation of this section.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Plain errors are limited to those harmful ones that are so rank that they should have been apparent to the trial judge without objection, or that strike at the fundamental fairness, honesty, or public reputation of the trial.”
    1 later decision 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.