United States v. Irvin’s Empirical Analysis
87 F.3d 860 · 1996
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably 145 Ohio App. 3d 555 - State v. Huff (2001), United States v. Hall (1997)
24 federal appellate · 16 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
Relies on Dennis v. Dennis · Shaw v. Barr · Reichelt v. Gates · Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution v. Hill · Gulf States Steel, Inc. v. LTV Corp.
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.
“Gangs generally arouse negative connotations and often invoke images of criminal activity and deviant behavior. There is therefore always the possibility that a jury will attach a propensity for committing crimes to defendants who are affiliated with gangs or that a jury’s negative feelings toward gangs will influence its verdict. Guilt by association is a genuine concern whenever gang evidence is admitted.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“discretion to exclude [ ] relevant evidence 'if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e have consistently held that, under appropriate circumstances, gang evidence has probative value warranting its admission over claims of prejudice.”
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.