United States v. Wayne’s Empirical Analysis
903 F.2d 1188 · 1990
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably United States v. Castro (1992), United States v. Devine (1991)
49 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 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. § 2 · 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Carroll v. United States · United States v. Bagley · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Giglio v. United States
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Rjegardless of the special interrogatory, the Wayne court relied on the district court’s own factual conclusion that the conspiracy continued until May 1988. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit stated in its holding that it was “satisfied that the court’s finding was not clearly erroneous.” * * * * * * [The defendants] sought a determination from the jury on a question related to sentencing, which was clearly not within the province of the jury to decide. In short, they did not seek an answer from the jury that would determine their guilt or innocence, but one that would serve as no more than an advisory opinion to the judge.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The standard to be used in this determination is one of practical accuracy rather than technical nicety. Where the precise identity of goods cannot be ascertained at the time the warrant is issued, naming only the generic class of items will suffice because less particularity can be reasonably expected than for goods (such as those stolen) whose exact identity is already known at the time of issuance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A “reasonable probability” is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
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.