United States v. Gaines’s Empirical Analysis
690 F.2d 849 · 1982
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably State v. Bey (1988), United States v. Aramony (1996)
46 federal appellate · 1 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 26 U.S.C. § 7206 · 26 U.S.C. § 7207 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Sandstrom v. Montana · Patterson v. New York · Leary v. United States · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen
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.
“Absent a showing of an abuse of discretion the district court will not be reversed for limiting summation as long as the defendant has the opportunity to make all legally tenable arguments that are supported by the facts of the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he district court has broad discretion over the scope of closing argument,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the instruction (1) is substantively correct; (2) was not substantially covered in the charge actually delivered to the jury; and (3) concerns an important point in the trial so that the failure to give it seriously impaired the defendant's ability to effectively present a given defense.”
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.