United States v. Glecier’s Empirical Analysis
923 F.2d 496 · 1991
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably United States v. Dischner (1992), Keele v. Wexler (1998)
76 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Hamling v. United States · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · Granito v. United States · Dix v. Georgia
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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellants who challenge evidentiary rulings of the district court are like rich men who wish to enter the Kingdom; their prospects compare with those of camels who wish to pass through the eye of a needle.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“afforded a special degree of deference: `[o]nly in an extreme case are appellate judges competent to second-guess the judgment of the person on the spot, the trial judge.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]f the government were required to identify, in indictments charging violation only of section 1962(d), specific predicate acts in which the defendant was involved, then a 1962(d) charge would have all of the elements necessary for a substantive RICO charge. Section 1962(d) would thus become a nullity, as it would criminalize no conduct not already covered by sections 1962(a) through (c). Such a result, quite obviously, would violate the statutory scheme in which conspiracy to engage in the conduct described in sections 1962(a) through (c) is itself a separate crime. As mentioned above, that separate crime centers on the act of agreement, which makes unnecessary — and in many cases impossible — the identification in the indictment of specific predicate acts that have come to fruition.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.