Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 905 F.2d 1100 - United States v. Baker

United States v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

905 F.2d 1100 · 1990

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
1
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

78 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably United States v. Townsend (1991), United States v. Edwards (1991)

78 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

770199020002010decided

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. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Glasser v. United States · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · Garrett v. United States · Jeffers v. United States · Bailey v. Butcher

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

  1. “[t]he prosecution must establish by substantial evidence that the defendant knew the existence and scope of the conspiracy and sought to promote its success.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “which may support an inference that he became a co-venturer by a profit-sharing arrangement.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A buyer does not automatically become a member of the conspiracy,”
    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.