United States v. Auerbach’s Empirical Analysis
913 F.2d 407 · 1990
Citation profile
101 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably United States v. Townsend (1991), United States v. Baker (1993)
101 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · United States v. Young · Pinkerton v. United States · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Poland v. Arizona
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To prove that a defendant was a member of a conspiracy the government must present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant knew of the conspiracy and that he intended to join and associate himself with its criminal design and purpose.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the prosecutor's statements were simply a permissible comment upon what the evidence showed and not a statement of his personal opinion regarding the defendant's guilt”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our recent adoption of a distinct standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims in conspiracy cases does not imply, however, that the standard of review differs substantially from that employed when reviewing sufficiency claims in other types of cases. Rather, it merely reflects our concern that the prosecution's burden in conspiracy cases not be relaxed. [S]ubstantial evidence is merely evidence of sufficient quantity and quality to support the jury's verdict.”
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.