Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 80 F.3d 688 - United States v. Workman

United States v. Workman’s Empirical Analysis

80 F.3d 688 · 1996

Citation profile

124
cited by 124 later decisions
9
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

63 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably United States v. Salameh (1998), United States v. Diaz (1999)

63 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions

6601996200020102020decided

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. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 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. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Olano · Bell v. Wolfish · United States v. Frady · Turner v. Safley

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

  1. “[i]t shall not be unlawful ... for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where ... one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Defendant's] apparently complete pre-arrest rehabilitation, although not on all fours with Maier , falls within its ambit. The trial judge was fully within his authority in granting [defendant] a downward departure for rehabilitation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “either remand the claim to the district court or leave the defendant to his post-conviction remedies by declining to rule on the claim”
    2 later decisions 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.