Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 920 F.2d 399 - United States v. Todd

United States v. Todd’s Empirical Analysis

920 F.2d 399 · 1990

Citation profile

171
cited by 171 later decisions
5
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

95 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 171 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Elder (1996), Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Magnesium Elektron, Inc. (1997)

95 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

10401990200020102020decided

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. § 3553 · 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 · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Bourjaily v. United States · Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.

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

  1. “a decision on an issue made by a court at one stage of a case should be given effect in successive stages of the same litigation.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is within the sole discretion of a court to determine if a prior ruling should be reconsidered. Thus, we decline to impose any conditions or limitations upon a court's power to review a prior ruling of [its own or of] 1 another court.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “No Brady violation exists where a defendant 'knew or should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory information,' or where the evidence is available to defendant from another source.”
    4 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.