Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 956 F.2d 540 - United States v. Daniel

United States v. Daniel’s Empirical Analysis

956 F.2d 540 · 1992

Citation profile

151
cited by 151 later decisions
2
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

91 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 151 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably United States v. Jenkins (1993), United States v. Kincaide (1998)

91 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

1040199220002010decided

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. § 3663 · 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Spies v. United States · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Lawn v. United States · Sansone 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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “can develop an adequate record on the issue.”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We will consider an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal of a criminal conviction only when the record is adequate to assess the merits of the defendant's allegations.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “As a general rule, we will not review an ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal.”
    9 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.