United States v. Simon’s Empirical Analysis
842 F.2d 552 · 1988
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Bordanaro v. McLeod (1989), United States v. Garcia-Rosa (1989)
46 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Figueroa · United States v. Mehrmanesh · United States v. Cintolo · Lovely v. United States · United States v. Pedro M. Gonzalez-Sanchez, United States of America v. Carlos Latorre, United States of America v. Manuel Parrilla-Marquez
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The prohibition against the introduction of “[ejvidence of other crimes ... to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith,” mandated by Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) as well as due process, Lovely v. United States, 169 F.2d 386 , 389 (4th Cir.1948), ... has become the exception rather than the rule, a classical case of the tail wagging the dog. Almost any excuse or farfetched theory is made to fit within that Rule’s truly exceptional language, i.e., that such evidence is admissible only as “proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” See Fed.R.Evid. 404(b).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Almost any excuse or far-fetched theory is made to fit within [Rule 404(b)'s] truly exceptional language.”
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.