United States v. Anders’s Empirical Analysis
899 F.2d 570 · 1990
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3552 · 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. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Nicholas v. United States · Rosenberg v. Comerica Bank · United States v. Diaz-Villafane · United States v. Joan · United States v. Nuno-Para
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant's status as a minimal or minor participant is a factual finding which is protected by the clearly erroneous standard.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“intended to cover defendants who are plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Guidelines require the sentencing court to make factual determinations which depend upon an assessment of the broad context of the crime.”
3 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.