United States v. McNatt’s Empirical Analysis
813 F.2d 499 · 1987
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently January 2006 · most notably Geesa v. State (1991), United States v. Batista-Polanco (1991)
38 federal appellate · 4 district · 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. § 2113
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · United States v. Petrozziello · United States v. Winter
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he standard of review for a judgment of acquittal notwithstanding a verdict is identical to the test employed to measure the sufficiency of evidence supporting a guilty verdict. The test is whether, considering the evidence as a whole, taken in the light most favorable to the government, together with all legitimate inferences that can be drawn from such evidence, a rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Hensel, 699 F.2d 18, 33 (1st Cir.), cert, denied, 461 U.S. 958 , 103 S.Ct. 2431 [ 77 L.Ed.2d 1317 ] (1983). [The court] must resolve any issue of credibility in favor of the jury’s verdict, United States v. Winter, 663 F.2d 1120, 1127 (1st Cir.1981), and [ ] must defer to the jury’s verdict if the evidence can support varying interpretations. United States v. Riverar-Sola, 713 F.2d 866, 869 (1st Cir.1983). In other words, the prosecutor need only produce that quantum of evidence by which a reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; there is no requirement to produce evidence that would compel a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he prosecutor need only produce that quantum of evidence by which a reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e must resolve any issue of credibility in favor of the jury's verdict, and we must defer to the jury's verdict if the evidence can support varying interpretations.”
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.