Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 76 F.3d 4 - United States v. Watson

United States v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis

76 F.3d 4 · 1996

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
2
states following
August 2014
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably United States v. Lopez-Lopez (2002), United States v. Henderson (2003)

28 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

260199620002010decided

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. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “To show a Brady violation, the defendant must show (among other factors) that the withheld 'evidence was exculpatory, as measured by its materiality.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “any reasonable view of the evidence support[ed]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “To show a Brady violation, the defendant must show (among other factors) that the withheld 'evidence was exculpatory, as measured by its materiality.' " United States v. Watson, 76 F.3d 4 , 7 (1st Cir.) (quoting United States v. Hemmer, 729 F.2d 10 , 14 (1st Cir.), cert denied, 467 U.S. 1218 (1984)), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1889 (1996). "Evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different had the evidence been disclosed.”
    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.