United States v. Goldfaden’s Empirical Analysis
959 F.2d 1324 · 1992
Citation profile
71 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably United States v. Pielago (1998), United States v. Laury (1993)
71 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 33 U.S.C. § 1319
Relies on Santobello v. New York · Williams v. People of State of New York · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · McMillan v. Pennsylvania · Mabry v. Johnson
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Subsection (b)(1) assumes a discharge or emission into the environment resulting in actual environmental contamination. A wide range of conduct, involving the handling of different quantities of materials with widely differing propensities, potentially is covered. Depending upon the harm resulting from the emission, release or discharge, the quantity and nature of the substance or pollutant, the duration of the offense and the risk associated with the violation, a departure of up to two levels in either direction from the offense levels prescribed in these specific offense characteristics may be appropriate.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e interpret [application note 5] to explain that subsection (b)(1) takes environmental contamination as a given, but allows for upward or downward departures depending on the potency, size, or duration of the contamination. The absence of proof of actual environmental contamination, in this case, therefore, does not affect the propriety of the district court’s enhancement for repetitive discharges.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“give up constitutional rights in reliance on promises made by prosecutors,”
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.