United States v. Leight’s Empirical Analysis
818 F.2d 1297 · 1987
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2007 · most notably Huddleston v. United States (1988), United States v. York (1991)
18 federal appellate · 10 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. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 7
Relies on Santoni v. United States · Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. · Kahn v. Grant · Jones v. Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc. · In re Martin-Trigona
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Although 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 concurrence“a party challenging the 404(b) evidence might find itself having to argue the difficult position that the case against it was so overwhelming that the evidence should have been ruled out.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.