United States v. Stanfa’s Empirical Analysis
685 F.2d 85 · 1982
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably United States v. Walsh (1999), United States v. Villard (1989)
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 659 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 33 U.S.C. § 1319
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Abney v. United States · Illinois v. Vitale · Ex parte Lange · United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp.
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is whether proof of one offense charged requires an additional fact that proof of the other offense does not necessi-tate____ Also of central importance is whether the legislature intended to make separately punishable the different types of conduct referred to in the various counts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[TJwo counts are not multiplicitous simply because the same evidence that proves one also proves the second. Rather, two counts are multiplicious if the evidence shows that exactly the same facts that would make out one violation also make out the other.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Multiplicity, the charging of a single offense in different counts of an indictment, has the vice that it may lead to multiple sentences for a single violation. And even if that does not result, it may prejudice the jury against the defendant by creating the impression of more criminal activity on his part than in fact may have been present.”
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.