United States v. Dabish’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.2d 240 · 1983
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably United States v. Acosta-Cazares (1989), United States v. Wright (1994)
78 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 1951 (Hobbs Act)
Relies on Santoni v. United States · United States v. Beechum · Trammel v. United States · Gray v. United States · Parham v. J. L.
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In reviewing the admission of evidence challenged under Rule 404(b), we must make two determinations. First, we must decide whether [the evidence] was “Of Course [sic], Dr. Treat did not testify that the cancellation of the defendant’s contract was because of competition against them by his cousin, Melvin Russell. This is because it was not the reason. Therefore you certainly will not find such testimony coming from Dr. Treat. A careful reading of the entire cross-examination of Dr. Treat, however, strongly suggests that such was the case and this was precisely what the government was moving to rebutt [sic]." (Emphasis added.) admissible for any proper purpose, as distinct from the improper purpose of showing ‘character’ or ‘propensity.’ If we conclude that there was a proper basis for admission, we must then consider whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential prejudicial effects. In the second instance, the standard of review on appeal is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting the evidence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is well settled that a trial judge's discretion in balancing the probative value of evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice is very broad.”
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.