United States v. Plache’s Empirical Analysis
913 F.2d 1375 · 1990
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably United States v. Davis (1991), United States v. Olano (1995)
58 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3013
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Smith v. Phillips · United States v. Harriss · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Morrison v. Olson
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[the] motion accompanies the introduction of evidence deemed prejudicial and a renewal at the close of all evidence would constitute an unnecessary formality.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) unless the protection be waived.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“potential for substantial emotional involvement, adversely affecting impartiality”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.