United States v. Baxter’s Empirical Analysis
884 F.2d 734 · 1989
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2009
7 federal appellate · 1 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 3237 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United States v. Johnson · United States Independent Telephone Ass'n v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. · United States v. Thomas F. Johnson, J. Kenneth Edlin, and William L. Robinson · United States v. Niederberger · United States v. Goldberg
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The dissent is certainly correct in characterizing the central issue in dispute in this case as a factual one. However, we are concerned that the dissent misapprehends the nature of our inquiry. The dissent asserts that we substitute our own “verdict of acquittal.” However, we are not reviewing whether there was sufficient evidence upon which a jury could have found Passodelis guilty, but rather whether there was sufficient evidence upon which the district court could have found that crimes were committed by Passodelis in the Middle District. In fact, it is completely unnecessary for us to call into question any of the jury’s findings since there is no factual inconsistency between the jury having found that Passodelis committed the crimes for which he was convicted and our determination that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that crimes were committed by Passodelis in the Middle District. The two inquiries are, on the facts of this case, entirely separate.... [Moreover,] the determination as to whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that crimes were committed by Passodelis in the Middle District is a question of law, not of fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“either where the check was deposited or where it was paid”
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.