United States v. Arrington’s Empirical Analysis
757 F.2d 1484 · 1985
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Wilson (1997), United States v. United Medical & Surgical Supply Corp. (1993)
44 federal appellate · 4 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. § 2315
Relies on Tibbs v. Florida · United States v. Wilson · United States v. Arrington · United States v. Spiegel
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.
“[Fed. R. Crim. P.] 33 allows a district court to grant a new trial in the interest of justice. When the motion attacks the weight of the evidence, the court's authority is much broader than when it is deciding a motion to acquit on the ground of insufficient evidence. In deciding a motion for a new trial, the district court is not constrained by the requirement that it view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Thus, it may evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. When the evidence weighs so heavily against the verdict that it would be unjust to enter judgment, the court should grant a new trial.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage“only when the evidence weighs heavily against the verdict.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“but was rendered moot when the district court granted the judgment of acquittal,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.