Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 837 F.2d 1545 - United States v. Santiago

United States v. Santiago’s Empirical Analysis

837 F.2d 1545 · 1988

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
2
states following
March 2022
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably 1998-2 City of Tuscaloosa (1998), Carriger v. Stewart (1997)

31 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

25019881990200020102020decided

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 19 U.S.C. § 1467 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Bourjaily v. United States · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · United States v. Ramsey · Benjamin v. United States · Darden v. Wainwright

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

  1. “a liberal standard in determining whether a statement is made in furtherance of a conspiracy.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “version of events remains exactly as it was at trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[Defendant’s] argument is strained, however, due to the fact that [the witness] has since retracted his recantation. [The witness’] version of events remains exactly as it was at trial. Furthermore, recantations are viewed with extreme suspicion by the courts. The district court’s ruling on a motion for new trial will not be reversed unless that ruling is so clearly erroneous as to constitute an abuse of discretion.”
    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.