United States v. Nickell’s Empirical Analysis
883 F.2d 824 · 1989
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably United States v. Ponce (1995), United States v. Cuozzo (1992)
36 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 1365 (Federal Anti-Tampering Act)
Relies on Allen v. United States · McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood · Gotthelf v. Commissioner · Ryan v. United States · Yazoo County Industrial Development Corp. Et Al. v. Suthoff Et Al.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In deciding whether to allow the jury to review testimony during deliberations, the court should avoid giving undue emphasis to particular testimony.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“decision to reread testimony to the jury, or to refuse a request by the jury to do so, is within the sound discretion of the trial court”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a purpose of assistance and instruction,”
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.