United States v. Wingender’s Empirical Analysis
711 F.2d 869 · 1983
Citation profile
15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
December 1995
most recently cited
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States v. DiFrancesco · Lustig v. United States · Rose v. Lundy · Wood v. United States · United States v. Busic
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the general rule is that a change in a legal sentence to increase the penalty it imposes violates the double jeopardy clause.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“there is no such bar to increasing an illegal or erroneous sentence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We refuse to sanction a broad rule which would allow a [lawful] sentence to be changed to conform with the original intention of the sentencing judge. Such a rule would present too great a potential for abuse.”
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.