United States v. Shoulberg’s Empirical Analysis
895 F.2d 882 · 1990
Citation profile
118 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 144 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably United States v. Concepcion (1992), United States v. Gaskin (2004)
118 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Bibby v. United States · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Watts v. United States · United Mine Workers, Local No. 1854 v. National Labor Relations Board · Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Alaska Industrial Board
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 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous and shall give due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“sentencing court's findings as to what acts were performed, what was said, what the speaker meant by her words, and how a listener would reasonably interpret those words will be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although Shoulberg ... did not specifically request that Hamsho convey the [threat] to Penna, the district court noted the possibility that, had the government not intervened, the [threat] might have been so relayed, and it characterized the note as 'a threat communicated to an intermediary'”
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.