Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 F.3d 218 - United States v. Cunningham

United States v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis

83 F.3d 218 · 1996

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
June 2015
most recently cited

54 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably United States v. Espino (2003), United States v. Flores (2004)

54 federal appellate · 1 district ·

350199620002010decided

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. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 371

Relies on Greene v. Massey · Massa v. United States · United States v. Darden · United States v. Massa · United States v. White

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

  1. “We will reverse a conviction for insufficient evidence and order the entry of a judgment of acquittal only if no construction of the evidence exists to support the jury's verdict.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of the government, and accepting all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence that support the jury's verdict.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “its wide discretion to formulate jury instructions.”
    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.