Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 895 F.2d 702 - United States v. Barry

United States v. Barry’s Empirical Analysis

895 F.2d 702 · 1990

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
2
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably United States v. Nicholas Bachynsky (1991), United States v. Syal (1992)

38 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

430199020002010decided

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. § 3559 · 18 U.S.C. § 3583 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on McCarthy v. United States · Federal Communications Commission v. Home Box Office, Inc. · United States v. Smith · Keel v. United States · United States v. Jaramillo-Suarez

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[a]s the Advisory Notes to the 1983 amendment to Rule 11 (adding subsection 11(h)) indicate, `it is still true, as the Supreme Court pointed out in McCarthy, that thoughtful and careful compliance with Rule 11 best serves the fair and efficient administration of criminal justice....'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “sole issue on appeal, therefore, is whether the district court's failure to advise appellant at his plea hearing of the mandatory period of supervised release ... requires us to set aside the guilty plea in the circumstances of this case. We hold that it does not and affirm.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.