Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 934 F.2d 196 - United States v. Maree

United States v. Maree’s Empirical Analysis

934 F.2d 196 · 1991

Citation profile

114
cited by 114 later decisions
3
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

74 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably United States v. Williams-Davis (1996), United States v. Matta-Ballesteros (1995)

74 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

880199120002010decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · United States v. McConney · Rushen v. Spain · Easter House 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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “reasonably relies on evidence indicating that a defendant has read the presentence report and discussed it with counsel.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “mandatory minimum penalty provided by law.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s deliberations or the effect of anything upon that or any other juror’s mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent or dissent from the verdict -... or concerning the juror’s mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror.”
    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.