United States v. Munson’s Empirical Analysis
819 F.2d 337 · 1987
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably United States v. Sepulveda (1993), United States v. Maldonado-Rivera (1990)
54 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Young · United States v. Frady · Cupp v. Naughten · United States v. Atkinson · Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Out-of-court statements constitute hearsay only when offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The election contest testimony of [the defendants], however, was not admitted into evidence in the § 241 trial to prove the truth of anything asserted therein. Quite the contrary, the point of the prosecutor’s introducing those statements was simply to prove that the statements were made so as to establish a foundation for later showing, through other admissible evidence, that they were false.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the absence of a timely objection our review is limited to examining the record for plain error, and we will correct only particularly egregious errors ... that seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]hese statements were admitted to show, through subsequent testimony, that [the coconspirators] were lying about their activities. They were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
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.