Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 821 F.3d 589 - United States v. Harris

United States v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

821 F.3d 589 · 2016

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
December 2024
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 15 U.S.C. § 637 · 15 U.S.C. § 644 · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 41 U.S.C. § 6502

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Neder v. United States · United States v. Gaudin · Durland v. United States · United States v. Schneider

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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “While a government contract awarded under an affirmative action program may be, in some sense, a “benefit” to the company awarded the contract, it does not share the common features of grants, loans, and entitlement program payments. Unlike the three enumerated examples, a contract award is not a unilateral transfer, but rather a bargained-for exchange for services rendered. And unlike the enumerated examples, contracts awarded under the 8(a) program do not exist primarily to benefit the awardee; rather, such contracts first and foremost serve the government’s own procurement needs.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the Sentencing Commission speaks clearly when it wants to exempt specific types of cases from the default practice of crediting against loss the value of services rendered by the defendant,”
    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.