Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 682 F.2d 1289 - United States v. Abushi

United States v. Abushi’s Empirical Analysis

682 F.2d 1289 · 1982

Citation profile

175
cited by 175 later decisions
May 2016
most recently cited

146 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 175 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably United States v. Whitten (1983), United States v. Baker (1993)

146 federal appellate ·

10701982199020002010decided

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 · Kotteakos v. United States · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Rochin v. People of California · Cupp v. Naughten

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 175 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “whether a joint trial was so manifestly prejudicial as to require the trial judge to exercise his discretion in but one way, by ordering a separate trial.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt a connection of a defendant with the conspiracy, even though the connection is slight, is sufficient to convict him with knowing participation in the conspiracy.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    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.