United States v. Bayerle’s Empirical Analysis
898 F.2d 28 · 1990
Citation profile
348 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 668 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably United States v. Burgos (1996), United States v. Poff (1991)
348 federal appellate · 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. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Bell v. Hood · United States v. Buenrostro · United States v. Franz · United States v. Colon
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 668 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“based on the district court's mistaken view that it lacked the authority to depart.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Appeal by a defendant. — A defendant may file a notice of appeal in the ' district court for review of an otherwise final sentence if the sentence— (1) was imposed in violation of law; (2) was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines; or (3) is greater than the sentence specified in the applicable guideline range to the extent that the sentence includes a. greater fine or term of imprisonment, probation, or supervised release than the maximum established in the guideline range, or includes a more limiting condition of probation or supervised release under subsection 3563(b)(6) or (b)(ll) than the maximum established in the guideline range; or (4) was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission ... that should result in a sentence different from that described.”
4 later decisions 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.