Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 87 F.3d 921 - United States v. Paredes

United States v. Paredes’s Empirical Analysis

87 F.3d 921 · 1996

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 2014

13 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

80199620002010decided

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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 912 · 18 U.S.C. § 913

Relies on United States v. Olano · Williams v. United States · Gregory v. Frontier Materials, Inc. · Texas v. New Mexico · Solventes Y Quimica de Nicaragua, S.A. Solquimisa v. Weaver

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

  1. “[Wjhere the crimes are similar and the similarity is probative of an issue identified in Rule 404(b), the risk of the jury making the forbidden inference is slight. The jury can properly infer from the prior similar activity conclusions regarding the defendant’s involvement in the charged offense. For example, the fact that a defendant committed a prior bank robbery while wearing a clown mask indicates that the defendant may have been the person who recently robbed a bank while wearing a clown mask”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “if a defendant has been convicted for the same offense more than once, he has demonstrated the need for greater sanctions to deter him from committing that same crime again--greater sanctions than might be required for a defendant who has never been convicted of a similar offense.”
    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.