Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 896 F.2d 815 - United States v. LaRouche

United States v. LaRouche’s Empirical Analysis

896 F.2d 815 · 1990

Citation profile

129
cited by 129 later decisions
3
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

61 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably United States v. Bakker (1991), United States v. Stewart (2001)

61 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

8401990200020102020decided

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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Cronic · Solem v. Helm

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

  1. “an unreasoning and arbitrary 'insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay.'”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “point to specific errors made by defense counsel that undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an unreasoning and arbitrary 'insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for a delay.' " Slappy, 461 U.S. at 11-12 (quoting Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 , 589 (1964)). "The Supreme Court has also indicated that the test for whether a trial judge has 'abused his discretion' in denying a continuance is not mechanical; it depends mainly on the reasons presented to the district judge at the time the request is denied.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.