United States v. Gibson’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.3d 1256 · 2013
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3558 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Illinois v. Gates · Rakas v. Illinois · Estelle v. McGuire · Rawlings v. Kentucky
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the jury instructions, taken together, accurately express the law applicable to the case without confusing or prejudicing the jury, there is no reason for reversal even though isolated clauses may, in fact, be confusing, technically imperfect, or otherwise subject to criticism.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“jury instructions challeng~d in the district court to determine whether the instructions misstated the law or misled the jury to the prejudice of the objecting party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] defendant has standing to challenge a ... search if the defendant had a 'legitimate expectation of privacy' in the property when it was searched.”
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.