Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 809 F.2d 429 - United States v. Torres

United States v. Torres’s Empirical Analysis

809 F.2d 429 · 1987

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
1
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

44 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably State v. Singh (2002), United States v. Pungitore (1990)

44 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

26019871990200020102020decided

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. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1114 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2112 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 452

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · United States v. Young · Darden v. Wainwright · Cupp v. Naughten

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

  1. “[T]he test that the court must use is whether at the time of the motion there was relevant evidence from which the jury could reasonably find [the defendant] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government ... bear[ing] in mind that 'it is the exclusive function of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “is not a safety zone within which prosecutors may seek refuge.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. ““ ‘[C]riminal liability under the aider or abettor statute results from the existence of “a community of intent between the [aider and abettor] and the [principal];” an aider or abettor is “liable for any criminal act which in the ordinary course of things was the natural or probable consequence of the crime that he advised or commanded, although such consequences may not have been intended by him.” ’ ””
    1 later decision 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.