United States v. Weiss’s Empirical Analysis
752 F.2d 777 · 1985
Citation profile
96 federal appellate · 5 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 153 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2021 · most notably Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc (1985), United States v. Nersesian (1987)
96 federal appellate · 5 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. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 7206
Relies on Berger v. United States · Stirone v. United States · Remmer v. United States · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · United States v. Dionisio
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 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'The touchstone of decision ... [is] the nature of what has been infiltrated and the probability of prejudice.' The trial court should assess the 'possibility of prejudice' by reviewing the entire record, analyzing the substance of the extrinsic evidence, and comparing it to that information of which the jurors were properly aware.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“An amendment of the indictment occurs when the charging terms of the indictment are altered, either literally or in effect, by prosecutor or court after the grand jury has last passed upon them. A variance occurs when the charging terms of the indictment are left unaltered, but the evidence offered at trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the indictment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘thinkpng] through the nature of the crime it wishes to allege and then spelling] out the offense in a carefully drafted indictment, instead of confronting the defendant with its theory of criminality for the first time at trial.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.