Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 703 F.2d 815 - United States v. Lyons

United States v. Lyons’s Empirical Analysis

703 F.2d 815 · 1983

Citation profile

78
cited by 78 later decisions
7
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

57 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably United States v. Gordon (1988), United States v. Zapata (1989)

57 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions

3801983199020002010decided

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. § 371

Relies on Glasser v. United States · Davis v. Alaska · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Pointer v. Texas · Holloway v. Arkansas

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

  1. “When a conspiracy to violate two statutes is alleged, the jury may find the defendant guilty if they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she conspired to violate either one of the statutes”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[wjhenever two or more defendants ... are represented by the same retained or assigned counsel ... the court shall promptly inquire with respect to such joint representation and shall personally advise each defendant of the right to effective assistance of counsel, including separate representation. Unless it appears that there is good cause to believe no conflict of interest is likely to arise, the court shall take such measures as may be appropriate to protect each defendant’s right to counsel.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If the direct testimony is especially prejudicial ..., we have held this remedy inadequate. On the premise that the jury could not follow the instruction to disregard the witness’ testimony, we have then required a mistrial.”
    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.