United States v. Cornell’s Empirical Analysis
780 F.3d 616 · 2015
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1959 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Allen v. United States · Salinas v. United States · Gonzalez v Raich · United States v. Burgos · Jenkins 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a supplemental instruction given by a trial court when the jury has reached an impasse in its deliberations and is unable to reach a consensus.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“court must merely be able to conclude that the jury could reasonably find that the evidence is authentic, not that the jury necessarily would so find.”
2 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.