United States v. Meester’s Empirical Analysis
762 F.2d 867 · 1985
Citation profile
108 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 166 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably United States v. Burgos (1996), United States v. Baker (2005)
108 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 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. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 28 U.S.C. § 144
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Pinkerton v. United States · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Michel 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 166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is only unfair prejudice, substantially outweighing probative value, which permits exclusion of relevant matter under Rule 403.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
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.