United States v. Keys’s Empirical Analysis
899 F.2d 983 · 1990
Citation profile
83 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably United States v. Hankey (2000), United States v. Morgan (1991)
83 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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. § 1791 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (Drug and Alcohol Dependent Offenders Treatment Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3742
Relies on United States v. Abel · United States v. Grayson · Lambert v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · Rosano v. United States · In re Disbarment of Cooper
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Sentencing Commission did not adequately consider a defendant's possible prison disciplinary record when it formulated Guidelines sections 4A1.1 through 4A1.3 and 2P1.2.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“significantly underrepresents the seriousness of the defendant's criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit further crimes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A departure under this provision is warranted when the criminal history category significantly under-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit further crimes.... “In considering a departure under this provision, the Commission intends that the court use, as a reference, the guideline range for a defendant with a higher or lower criminal history category, as applicable. For example, if the court concludes that the defendant’s criminal history category of III significantly under-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history, and that the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history most closely resembles that of most defendants with a Category IV criminal history, the court should look to the guideline range specified for a defendant with a Category IV criminal history to guide its departure.””
1 later decision 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.