United States v. Harrison’s Empirical Analysis
942 F.2d 751 · 1991
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably United States v. Morehead (1992), United States v. Hardwell (1996)
77 federal appellate · 10 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. § 1952 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Huddleston v. United States · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Blumenthal v. United States · United States v. Miller
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`CA] single conspiracy is not transformed into multiple conspiracies merely by virtue of the fact that it may involve two or more phases or spheres of operation, so long as there is sufficient proof of mutual dependence and assistance.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““First, whether the proliferation of separate crimes or conspiracies presented in the case impaired the jury’s ability to segregate each individual [conspirator's] actions and the evidence associated with [her or] his participation; Second, whether confusion among members of the jury concerning the legal limitations on the use of certain evidence resulted from the variance; and, Third, the strength or weakness of the evidence underlying the jury’s conviction.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the focal point of the analysis is whether the alleged co-conspirators were united in a common unlawful goal or purpose. Of principal concern is whether the conduct of the alleged coconspirators, however diverse and far-ranging, exhibits an interdependence.”
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.