United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
882 F.2d 1444 · 1989
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably United States v. Grubb (1993), United States v. Munoz (2000)
40 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 287 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Lord Electric Co. v. United States · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Harris v. McRae · Gilbert v. First National Bank of Jackson · In re Disbarment of Gonzales
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[R]emoteness remains a relevant factor for the trial court to consider in assessing the probative value of the evidence,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Evidence that tends to show that a defendant is living beyond his means is of probative value in a case involving a crime resulting in financial gain.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“). The district court did not err in admitting evidence of the Fluor check. 3 Evidence that Rosas and his wife fraudulently acquired an SBA loan by attaching tax returns for 1987-89 that were substantially different from their actual returns for those years is not too remote from and dissimilar to the changed conduct. Defendant's argument on this issue fails. 4 The SBA-loan evidence came in as impeachment on Rosas' cross-examination. Rosas was subject to questioning about specific instances of conduct "for the purpose of attacking or supporting [his] credibility....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.