United States v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis
776 F.3d 1021 · 2015
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974)
Relies on Faretta v. California · McKaskle v. Wiggins · Iowa v. Tovar · Rothgery v. Gillespie County · Marshall v. Rodgers
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the district court should have taken up the self-representation request more expeditiously.” Id. at 1025 . But the panel found”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the primary focus must be on whether the defendant had a fair chance to present his case in his own way.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.