United States v. Temple’s Empirical Analysis
862 F.2d 821 · 1988
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably United States v. Sullivan (1990), United States v. Harrison (1991)
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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. § 371 · 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (§ 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on In re Martin-Trigona · City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc. · United States v. Mehrmanesh · United States v. Kendall · Murphy Oil Corp. v. Naph-Sol Refining Co.
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`(1) must tend to establish intent, knowledge, motive, identity or absence of mistake or accident; (2) must also be so related to the charge that it serves to establish intent, knowledge, motive, identity or absence of mistake or accident; (3) must have real probative value, not just possible worth; and (4) must be close in time to the crime charged.'"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the trial court finds that the prior acts are admissible under Rule 404(b), it must still conduct a separate balancing of the probative value of the evidence and its prejudicial effect under Rule 403.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Mohapatra“relevant to an issue in the case by `articulat[ing] precisely the evi-dentiary hypothesis by which a fact of consequence may be inferred from the evidence of other acts.'”
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.