Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 778 F.2d 963 - United States v. De Peri

United States v. De Peri’s Empirical Analysis

778 F.2d 963 · 1985

Citation profile

152
cited by 152 later decisions
4
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

86 federal appellate · 20 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 152 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp. (1993), United States v. Boylan (1990)

86 federal appellate · 20 district · 5 state decisions

62019851990200020102020decided

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. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Glasser v. United States · Bruton v. United States · Kotteakos 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 152 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'abbreviated, composed with unfinished sentences and punctuated with ambiguous references to events that [were] clear only to the [defendant] and [the witness].'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is the rare case in which adverse pretrial publicity will create a presumption of prejudice that overrides the jurors' assurances that they can be impartial.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “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.”
    2 later decisions 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.