United States v. Orta’s Empirical Analysis
760 F.2d 887 · 1985
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 21 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably United States v. Tortora (1990), United States v. Motamedi (1985)
37 federal appellate · 21 district ·
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. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3145 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 951 (Controlled Substances Import and Export Act) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Ohio State Board of Education v. Reed · United States v. Edwards · United States v. Acevedo-Ramos
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence ...; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person, including (A) his character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, ... and record concerning appearance at court proceedings;”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he passage of the pretrial detention provision of the 1984 Act did not, however, signal a congressional intent to incarcerate wholesale the category of accused persons awaiting trial” ( 760 F.2d at 890 ); that”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he district court erred in interpreting the 'reasonably assure' standard set forth in the statute as a requirement that release conditions 'guarantee' ... the defendant's appearance. Such an interpretation contradicts both the framework and the intent of the pretrial release and detention provision of the [BRA].”
5 later decisions 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.