Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 955 F.2d 77 - United States v. Butt

United States v. Butt’s Empirical Analysis

955 F.2d 77 · 1992

Citation profile

114
cited by 114 later decisions
5
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

79 federal appellate · 10 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably United States v. Sasso (1995), United States v. DeCologero (2008)

79 federal appellate · 10 district · 6 state decisions

6801992200020102020decided

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. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3742

Relies on United States v. Owens · Reilly v. United States · United States v. Rivera-Santiago · Conway v. Electro Switch Corp. · United States v. Garcia-Rosa

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. “in subsection (a)(2) does not require a contrary reading. Subsection (a)(1), as we understand it, establishes a minimum base offense level (nineteen) for RICO violations. This minimum reflects a legislative judgment that RICO violations--because entailing not one criminal act, but a pattern of predicate crimes--warrant a higher base offense level than do non-racketeering offenses. See Dempsey, 768 F.Supp. at 1281. (”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a pronounced disposition to lie or hallucinate, or suffered from a severe illness, such as schizophrenia, that dramatically impaired her ability to perceive and tell the truth”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “provides[s] some significant help to the jury in its efforts to evaluate the witness's ability to perceive or to recall events or to testify accurately.”
    3 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.