United States v. Simone’s Empirical Analysis
931 F.2d 1186 · 1991
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably State v. Phillips (1995), 166 Ill. 2d 381 - People v. Guest (1995)
65 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 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. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Boykin v. Alabama · United States v. Cronic · Hamling 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(6) If, after the hearing, the court determines that the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that— (A) the petitioner has a legal right, title, or interest in the property, and such right, title, or interest renders the order of forfeiture invalid in whole or in part because the right, title, or interest was vested in the petitioner rather than the defendant or was superior to any right, title, or interest of the defendant at the time of the commission of the acts which gave rise to the forfeiture of the property under this section; or (B) the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value of the right, title, or interest in the property and was at the time of purchase reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under this section; the court shall amend the order of forfeiture in accordance with its determination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Any person convicted of a violation of [any section of either subchapter of Title 21 (Drug Abuse Prevention and Control)] punishable by imprisonment for more than one year shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law— (2) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation____”
1 later decision 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.