Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 855 F.2d 1217 - United States v. Schultz

United States v. Schultz’s Empirical Analysis

855 F.2d 1217 · 1988

Citation profile

137
cited by 137 later decisions
August 2021
most recently cited

80 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably United States v. Evans (1989), United States v. Gonzalez (1991)

80 federal appellate ·

84019881990200020102020decided

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. § 1952 · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Nixon · Pinkerton v. United States · Bourjaily v. United States · Castor v. United States

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

  1. “the relevant question [where sufficiency of the evidence is at issue] is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[w]itness credibility is solely within the province of the jury.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]o sustain the jury's verdict, the evidence does not need to be inconsistent with every conclusion save that of guilt.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.