Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 921 F.2d 975 - United States v. Rogers

United States v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis

921 F.2d 975 · 1990

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
12
states following
March 2014
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 12 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably United States v. Gordon (1993), United States v. Peña (1991)

52 federal appellate · 12 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 12 states

630199020002010decided

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) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3552 · 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (Drug and Alcohol Dependent Offenders Treatment Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Gault · Malloy v. Hogan · Moran v. Burbine · United States v. Tucker

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

  1. “Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment ... if they are alleged to have participated in the ... same series of acts or transactions”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the denial of a downward adjustment under [federal sentencing guidelines] does not constitute a penalty or an enhancement of sentence”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “establish the mitigating factor[s] by a preponderance of the evidence.”
    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.