United States v. Finestone’s Empirical Analysis
816 F.2d 583 · 1987
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably United States v. Jernigan (2003), United States v. Terzado-Madruga (1990)
53 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 963
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · Hyde v. United States
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that he undertook affirmative steps, inconsistent with the objects of the conspiracy, to disavow or to defeat the conspiratorial objectives, and either communicated those acts in a manner reasonably calculated to reach his co-conspirators or disclosed the illegal scheme to law enforcement authorities.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] conviction will not be overturned on the basis of a violation of Rule 403 absent a clear abuse of discretion. This rule is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly, and, indeed, the trial court’s discretion to exclude evidence as unduly prejudicial is narrowly circumscribed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
2 later decisions 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.