Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 742 F.2d 521 - United States v. Sterling

United States v. Sterling’s Empirical Analysis

742 F.2d 521 · 1984

Citation profile

102
cited by 102 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

77 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 102 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2016 · most notably Garrett v. United States (1985), United States v. Moya-Gomez (1988)

77 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

4801984199020002010decided

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. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 960 · 21 U.S.C. § 963

Relies on Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · Ryan v. United States · Kentucky v. Indiana · Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Ogilvie · Bibby 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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[w]hen a continuance is requested to obtain witnesses, the accused must show ... that the testimony will be competent and relevant”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “there is no legal requirement that the violations which make up the continuing series be specifically listed in the indictment.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “probative value [was] outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury,”
    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.