United States v. Sarcinelli’s Empirical Analysis
667 F.2d 5 · 1982
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably United States v. Acosta-Cazares (1989), United States v. Hartley (1982)
42 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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
Relies on United States v. Campagnuolo
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“should impose the least severe sanction that will accomplish the desired result-prompt and full compliance with the court's discovery orders.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The magistrate’s January 24 recommendation to the district court was not the product of a careful consideration of the factors we have cited that dictate the type of sanction, if any, that should be imposed when a party fails to comply with a rule 16 discovery order. The recommendation does not indicate the extent of the material prejudice, if any, the defendant may have suffered as a result of the prosecutor’s failure to discover; it merely recites that the defense counsel were unable to proceed with the suppression hearing until they were given the requisite discovery. The recommendation does not indicate why this problem could not have been solved by postponing the suppression hearing * * * * in short, the magistrate failed to justify the extreme sanctions she recommended to the district court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Mathis
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.