United States v. Medina-Estrada’s Empirical Analysis
81 F.3d 981 · 1996
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2010 · most notably United States v. Quarrell (2002), United States v. Roman-Zarate (1997)
19 federal appellate · 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 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (Drug and Alcohol Dependent Offenders Treatment Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Dunnigan · Roaquin v. Brown · United States v. Massey · United States v. Urbanek · United States v. Owens
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i] false testimony [ii] concerning a material matter [iii] with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, evidence of the following is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions: (D) any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the government which do not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty later withdrawn.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he district court may generally identify the testimony at issue . . . so that when we review the transcript we can evaluate the Dunnigan findings of the elements of perjury . . . without having simply to speculate on what the district court might have believed was the perjurious testimony.”
1 later decision 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.