United States v. Hewes’s Empirical Analysis
729 F.2d 1302 · 1984
Citation profile
91 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably United States v. Baker (2005), Jackson v. BellSouth Telecommunications (2004)
91 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2314
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · United States v. Turkette · Santoni v. United States
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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a RICO enterprise exists where a group of persons associate, formally or informally, with the purpose of conducting illegal activity.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The test for compelling prejudice is whether under all the circumstances of the particular case, as a practical matter, it is within the capacity of the jury to follow the admonitory instructions and accordingly to collate and appraise the independent evidence against each defendant solely upon that defendant’s own acts, statements and conduct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
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.