United States v. Kovic’s Empirical Analysis
830 F.2d 680 · 1987
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably United States v. Nesbitt (1988), McCleese v. United States (1996)
41 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier · United States v. Frady · Cupp v. Naughten
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] federal prisoner's failure to raise a constitutional issue on direct appeal bars raising it in a subsequent Sec. 2255 motion unless the defendant can show cause for and actual prejudice resulting from the error of which he complained.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In reaching our decision affirming the district court, we are mindful of the need for finality of criminal convictions.... All too often, as we are seeing in this case, the defense counsel takes a buckshot approach hoping a pellet will strike — but instead, our overburdened judicial system has been put through yet another needlessly repetitious and wasteful collateral attack. Some place, somewhere, somehow, we must put an end to this repetitious and meritless litigation if we are to be able to attempt to render justice in a timely fashion to those with meritorious claims.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have noted that district courts are allowed to consider the defendant’s juvenile record, see United States v. Madison, 689 F.2d 1300 , 1315 (7th Cir.1982), as well as the defendant’s criminal record in general, see, e.g., United States v. Hoffman, 806 F.2d 703 , 714 (7th Cir.1986), when imposing sentence.” United States v. Kovic, 830 F.2d 680 , 689 n. 13 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 778 , 98 L.Ed.2d 864 (1988). 21 . For instance, Ana DaSilva testified at her plea hearing that:”
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.