Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 760 F.2d 1492 - United States v. Dupuy

United States v. Dupuy’s Empirical Analysis

760 F.2d 1492 · 1985

Citation profile

138
cited by 138 later decisions
9
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

80 federal appellate · 7 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 138 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Aichele (1991), United States v. Vaccaro (1987)

80 federal appellate · 7 district · 14 state decisions

58019851990200020102020decided

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. § 2 · 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. § 960

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Glasser v. United States · United States v. Agurs

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

  1. “we will uphold a conviction if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of each element of the crime charged.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Since suppression by the Government is a necessary element of a Brady claim, if the means of obtaining the exculpatory evidence has been provided to the defense, the Brady claim fails.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “As a general rule federal courts refuse to permit a prosecutor to be called as a witness in a trial in which he is a participant unless there is a 'compelling need.'”
    3 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.