United States v. Papaleo’s Empirical Analysis
853 F.2d 16 · 1988
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 8 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably United States v. Lopez (1991), United States v. Waldemar Gonzalez-Vazquez (2000)
39 federal appellate · 8 district · 8 state decisions
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. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974)
Relies on Santobello v. New York · Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States · Pelaes v. United States · Lord Electric Co. v. United States · Johnson v. Righetti
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“no more than an offer by the government: if the defendant pleads guilty and if that plea is accepted by the court, then the government will perform as stipulated in the agreement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While plea agreements are a matter of criminal jurisprudence, most courts, including this one, have held that they are also subject to contract principles.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Like the plea agreement at issue in Papaleo , the plea agreement between defendant Díaz and the government did not contain bilateral promises or an explicit promise by Díaz to do anything-thus, it must be construed as an offer by the government for a unilateral contract.”
2 later decisions 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.