Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 798 F.2d 248 - United States v. Driver

United States v. Driver’s Empirical Analysis

798 F.2d 248 · 1986

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
3
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Briscoe (1990), United States v. Tarantino (1988)

23 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

17019861990200020102020decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Wainwright v. Sykes

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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “the 'no request,' 'general request,' and 'specific request' cases of prosecutorial failure to disclose evidence favorable to the accused[,] [t]he evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “defense counsel could reasonably have concluded that the strength of [defendant's] claim to innocence would have been dissipated by arguing to the jury that [defendant] was part of a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, but that he was not part of the conspiracy charged in the indictment”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.