United States v. Herrera’s Empirical Analysis
878 F.2d 997 · 1989
Citation profile
198 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 227 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably United States v. Edwards (1991), United States v. Sanchez (1990)
198 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Illinois Northern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · United States v. Mejia-Orosco · United States v. Buenrostro
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 227 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“only if, after reviewing the entire evidence, we are left 'with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'”
31 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[I]f two permissible views exist, the fact-finder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) If the defendant was an organizer or leader of criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 4 levels. (b) If the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 3 levels. (c) If the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity other than described in (a) or (b), increase by 2 levels. [T]he exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others.”
6 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.