Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 862 F.2d 967 - United States v. Nerlinger

United States v. Nerlinger’s Empirical Analysis

862 F.2d 967 · 1988

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
December 2023
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably United States v. Eisen (1992), United States v. Thornton (1993)

24 federal appellate · 5 district ·

29019881990200020102020decided

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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 371

Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Martin Exploration Management 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendant or provide whatever justice requires.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[o]nce a party withdraws from a conspiracy subsequent statements by a co-conspirator do not fall within this exemption.”
    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.