Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 860 F.2d 620 - United States v. Herbert

United States v. Herbert’s Empirical Analysis

860 F.2d 620 · 1988

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
May 2004
most recently cited

57 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently May 2004 · most notably United States v. Tisdale (1990), United States v. Hudspeth (1994)

57 federal appellate · 1 district ·

510198819902000decided

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. § 924

Relies on Octopi, Inc. v. Courtney · Reading Co. v. CJI Industries, Inc. · United States v. Petty · United States v. Wicks

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

  1. “multiple convictions arising from multiple criminal transactions should be treated as separate convictions”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Those] people who have demonstrated, by virtue of their definition, that locking them up and letting them go doesn’t do any good. They go on again, you lock them up, you let them go, it doesn’t do any good, they are back for a third time. At that juncture we should say, ‘That’s it; time out; it is all over. We, as responsible people, will never give you the opportunity to do this again.’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “On its face, the term 'three previous convictions' does not appear to be ambiguous. The government, however, through the solicitor general, has previously conceded that similar language in a statute was ambiguous.”
    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.