Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 F.3d 17 - United States v. Benedict

United States v. Benedict’s Empirical Analysis

95 F.3d 17 · 1996

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2024

7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

501996200020102020decided

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. § 1707 · 18 U.S.C. § 2115 · 18 U.S.C. § 371

Relies on Ohio v. Kentucky · Gotthelf v. Commissioner · Lambert v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Rosano 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “cut short [the jury's] opportunity to fully consider the evidence... [or] deprive[d] the defendant of the very real benefit of reconsideration and change of mind or heart.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]t is difficult to imagine that the jury could continue to deliberate on [one theory] without reweighing the evidence with respect to”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “in which it conducted deliberations and had abused its discretion by instructing the jury to deliver partial verdicts. Id. at 19-20 . Similar facts appear in this case. Here, deliberations had not been underway for a substantial amount of time given that this case involved a capital murder charge. The trial judge decided on his own volition, without request from the jury or the parties, to take verdicts before adjourning on the first afternoon of deliberation, solely because of the trial judge's concern that if”
    1 later decision 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.