United States v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis
894 F.2d 565 · 1990
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably United States v. Germosen (1998), United States v. Downing (2002)
32 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Carnegie v. United States · Huddleston v. United States · Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Pemberton · National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the defendant disavows awareness that a crime was being perpetrated, and the government bears the burden of proving the defendant's knowing possession as an element of the crime, knowledge is properly put in issue.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the evidence must be introduced for a proper purpose, such as proof of knowledge or identity. Second, the offered evidence must be relevant to an issue in the case pursuant to Rule 402, as enforced through Rule 104(b). Third, the evidence must satisfy the probative-prejudice balancing test of Rule 403. Fourth, if the evidence of other acts is admitted, the district court must, if requested, provide a limiting instruction for the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (8)(C) ... against the Government in criminal cases, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.”
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.