United States v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
921 F.2d 335 · 1990
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Thompson (2005), United States v. Hudspeth (1994)
36 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Taylor v. United States · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Nicholas 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Consistent with contract-law principles, we look to the language of the document, focusing squarely within its four cor-ners____ If defendant had wanted to condition his plea on the conferral of an incremental benefit — the prosecution’s agreement to forgo its right to appeal any sentence imposed — he could have insisted that such a term be made part of the Agreement. He did not do so.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The plain language of the [statute] does not admit of any such discretion [not to impose an enhanced sentence].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“we view the plain language of the statute ... as dispositive”
1 later decision 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.