United States v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
956 F.2d 1388 · 1992
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably United States v. Williamson (1995), 182 Ill. 2d 193 - People v. Manning (1998)
57 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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
Relies on Doyle v. Ohio · Bourjaily v. United States · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Unimet Corp. v. United Steelworkers · Isaksen v. Vermont Castings, Inc.
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“there is considerable danger that evidence that a witness has used illegal drugs may so prejudice the jury that it will excessively discount the witness' testimony.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the evidence is directed toward establishing a matter in issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged, (2) the evidence shows that the other act is similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter in issue, (3) the evidence is sufficient to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the similar act, and (4) the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2 is charged in the indictment, the defendant is put on notice that he can be convicted as an aider and abettor. Because a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2 was charged in the indictment, appellants can neither claim an amendment to the indictment nor unfair surprise.”
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.