United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
88 F.3d 845 · 1996
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably United States v. Summers (2005), United States v. Rith (1999)
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on White v. Illinois · United States v. Inadi · Chitwood v. McLemore · United States v. Galloway · O'Meara v. United States
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this case, the evidence was admissible because it was non-hearsay under Rule 801(a)(1) and (c). Rule 801(c) provides that “ ‘Hearsay’ is a statement ... offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” A “statement” is defined in Rule 801(a)(1) as “an oral or written assertion.” Although “assertion” is not defined in Rule 801, the advisory committee notes state that “nothing is an assertion unless intended to be one.” Fed.R.Evid. 801 advisory committee’s note.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“evidence does not become inadmissible simply because the district court relied on an erroneous reason for admitting it. So long as the evidence is admissible under some legally correct theory, no error occurred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“on any ground that finds support in the record, even where the lower court reached its conclusions from a different or even erroneous course of reasoning.”
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.