United States v. Crooks’s Empirical Analysis
804 F.2d 1441 · 1986
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably United States v. Iles (1990), United States v. Hooks (1988)
61 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
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 15 U.S.C. § 77 · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206
Relies on Ashe v. Swenson · Mann v. Koob · Sealfon v. United States · Roberts v. Louisiana · United States v. Pomponio
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the existence of an agreement to accomplish an illegal objective, an overt act in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy, and intent on [the] part of the conspirators to agree, as well as to defraud the United States.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he district court's order, not the dismissal of the jury, constituted the action occasioning the new trial,” id. at 1445, but in that case the district court had declared a mistrial and entered an order for new trial at the same time. See id. at 1444. Our conclusion is therefore consistent with Crooks on this issue. 4 . Another factor that can lead to a misreading of Crooks was the fact that none of the 70 days had been used at the time of Crooks' interlocutory appeal. Thus, even after”
3 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.