Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 866 F.2d 604 - United States v. Ryan

United States v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis

866 F.2d 604 · 1989

Citation profile

174
cited by 174 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
November 2006
most recently cited

150 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 174 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2006 · most notably United States v. Watts (1997), Burns v. United States (1991)

150 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

1300198919902000decided

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. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 844 (§ 404 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Rideout v. United States · United States v. Guerrero · United States v. Correa-Vargas · United States v. Bernard

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

  1. “[T]he court shall impose a sentence of the kind, and within the range, referred to in subsection (a)(4) unless the court finds that an aggravating or mitigating circumstance exists that was not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines and that should result in a sentence different from that described.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he Commission intends the sentencing courts to treat each guideline as carving out a 'heartland,' a set of typical cases embodying the conduct that each guideline describes. When a court finds an atypical case, one to which a particular guideline linguistically applies but where conduct significantly differs from the norm, the court may consider whether a departure is warranted.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[b]efore the guidelines were promulgated, a court was permitted to consider evidence on counts of which a defendant was acquitted in sentencing the defendants.”
    3 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.