United States v. Ulloa’s Empirical Analysis
882 F.2d 41 · 1989
Citation profile
27 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably United States v. Tillem (1990), United States v. Lai-Moi Leung (1994)
27 federal appellate ·
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 Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc. · Costarelli v. Massachusetts · Williams v. 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“He asserted that the government was required to prove that the defendant was not only willing but also ready to commit the crime, in the sense of having the present physical ability to do so. The Second Circuit rejected this argument: 38 The focus of the entrapment inquiry, once inducement by the Government is established, is on the defendant's state of mind. [In our cases stating that the defendant was”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'Ready' implies an open amenability to it. It is not terribly different from 'willing.' The two of them together imply a certain amenability to be involved in illegal conduct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“was predisposed, or 'ready and willing,' to commit the crime before the informant's inducement.”
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.