Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 809 F.2d 397 - United States v. Bruun

United States v. Bruun’s Empirical Analysis

809 F.2d 397 · 1987

Citation profile

146
cited by 146 later decisions
2
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

119 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 146 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably United States v. Townsend (1991), United States v. Moya-Gomez (1988)

119 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

6601987199020002010decided

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. § 1005 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 2315 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 656

Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Kotteakos v. United States · United States v. Russell · Patterson v. New York · Lutwak 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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “is an agreement among the conspirators to commit an offense, attended by an act of one or more of them to effect the object of the conspiracy.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In order to convict a defendant of conspiracy, the Government must prove that (1) there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, (2) the defendant was a party to the agreement, and (3) an overt act was committed in furtherance of the agreement by one of the co-conspirators.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “some day be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.