United States v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis
760 F.2d 828 · 1985
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2008 · most notably United States v. Murphy (1985), United States v. Rodriguez (1989)
34 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Barrett v. United States · Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks · United States v. California · Hugh J. Addonizio v. United States · Federal Election Commission v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may not change or reduce a sentence imposed within the applicable statutory limits on the ground that the sentence was too severe unless the trial court relied on improper or unreliable information in exercising its discretion or failed to exercise any discretion at all in imposing the sentence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The stipulations were simple narratives, and largely testimonial. They stated facts to which the government’s witnesses would have testified had they been called, with no stipulation as to the truthfulness of the testimony. There was no stipulation as to intent. The district court was merely asked to decide the case on the basis of an agreed statement of facts; the legal inferences remained to be drawn.”
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.