United States v. Beddow’s Empirical Analysis
957 F.2d 1330 · 1992
Citation profile
168 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 267 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Cabrales (1998), United States v. Warshak (2010)
168 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3237 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 7201
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Young · Conway v. Statesman Mortgage Co. · United States v. Robinson · Maryland v. Craig
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 267 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
61 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]his is necessarily a fact-specific inquiry that involves more than just a consideration of the elements of the two offenses. Factors such as the temporal and geographical proximity of the two offenses, common victims, and a common criminal plan or intent also must be considered.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any sentence previously imposed upon adjudication of guilt ... for conduct not part of the instant offense.”
6 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.