Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 75 F.3d 335 - United States v. Powers

United States v. Powers’s Empirical Analysis

75 F.3d 335 · 1996

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
2
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably United States v. Zizzo (1997), United States v. Singleton (1997)

17 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

1301996200020102020decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on United States v. Olano · Sowashee Venture v. EB, Inc. · Shaw v. Barr · Dock v. American Telephone & Telegraph Technologies · United States v. Townsend

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The statement need not have been made exclusively, or even primarily, to further the conspiracy.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “so substantial as to render the recording as a whole untrustworthy.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In addition, Falzone told LaBarbera that Zizzo would have a say on whether his loan was approved and later claimed to have been present when Chiaramonti handed Zizzo a $1,000 payment from LaBarbera. Because Falzone's statements (despite his later self-serving affidavit to the contrary) were supported by independent evidence, we conclude that the district judge did not err in finding that Falzone and Zizzo were coconspirators. 43 Second, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Falzone's statements furthered the conspiracy. Falzone's statements”
    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.