Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 810 F.2d 2 - United States v. Scelzo

United States v. Scelzo’s Empirical Analysis

810 F.2d 2 · 1987

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
July 2001
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 2001 · most notably Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Cartagena (1989), United States v. Pedro M. Gonzalez-Sanchez, United States of America v. Carlos Latorre, United States of America v. Manuel Parrilla-Marquez (1987)

41 federal appellate · 2 district ·

260198719902000decided

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. § 1644 (§ 134 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 371

Relies on Houltin v. United States · B.D. International Discount Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. · Porter v. States · Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus · Michigan v. Clifford

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

  1. “As a first step, the judge determines whether the evidence has some “special” probative value that would show intent, preparation, knowledge, or absence of mistake. As a second step, the judge balances the evidence’s probative value against the prejudice to the defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[w]e have thus held that evidence of similar past crimes or wrongful acts may be especially appropriate in conspiracy prosecutions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “for such evidence to be properly admitted, it must have a similarity sufficient to be probative.”
    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.