United States v. Muñoz’s Empirical Analysis
812 F.3d 809 · 2016
Citation profile
29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
August 2022
most recently cited
13 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553
Relies on Minnesota v. Dickerson · Minnesota v. Murphy · United States v. Loy · United States v. Paul · United States v. Villano
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the district court erred, (2) the error was plain, (3) the error affected substantial rights, and (4) the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Munoz, 812 F.3d 809, 813 (10th Cir. 2016). Assuming prong-1 error, Joseph certainly fails on prong 2. For an error to be”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Keeping [the defendant] away from other convicted felons is a sensible way to reduce the risk of recidivism, which is a legitimate purpose of supervised release even if the condition encroaches on a constitutionally protected interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court abuses its discretion when a ruling is based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an erroneous conclusion of law, or a clear error of judgment.”
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.