United States v. Doyle’s Empirical Analysis
771 F.2d 250 · 1985
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently November 2009 · most notably United States v. Paladino (2005), United States v. Burrell (1992)
29 federal appellate · 5 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. § 844 · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Luce v. United States · Coastal Steel Corp. v. Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc. · Luck v. United States · United States v. Petrozziello
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At some point, however, the inference asked to be drawn will be unreasonable enough that the suggestion of it cannot be justified as a fair comment on the evidence but instead is more akin to the presentation of wholly new evidence to the jury, which should only be admitted subject to cross-examination, to proper instructions and to the rules of evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Huggins and Collins contend that Schwanke’s statements were not admissible under Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 801(d)(2)(E), 28 U.S.C.A. We disagree. Under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) a statement is not hearsay and is therefore admissible if made “by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” At the time Schwanke was picked up he told Keith and Behunin that he needed help, he did not want to go to the hospital, and that he wanted to go to the home of the man who was going to pay him $100 for blowing up the building. Schwanke’s comments that he did not want to go to the hospital and that he wanted to collect $100 for blowing up the building were made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The conspiracy was yet in being. It could not have been completed, from Schwanke’s view, until he had received the $100. The statements were thus admissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. State“[W]here 'it is more likely than not that the declarant and the defendant were members of a conspiracy when the ... statement was made and that the statement was made and that the statement was in furtherance of the conspiracy,'”
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.