United States v. Piazza’s Empirical Analysis
959 F.2d 33 · 1992
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 4
Relies on Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Marino v. Ortiz · Domby v. United States · Adman v. United States · Exxon Corp. v. Department of Revenue of Wisconsin
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Fed.R.Crim.P.] 32(c)(3)(D) does not require the district court to mouth any particular magic words or to make a talismanic incantation of the exact phraseology of the rule; it suffices that the record reflects, that the court expressly adverted to the factual controversy in the [PSI] and complied with either of the alternative mandates of the rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When the defendant disputes a fact contained in the [PSI], the district court must articulate either (1) a finding as to the disputed fact, or (2) the court’s determination that such a finding is not necessary because the disputed fact will not be taken into account in calculating the sentence.”
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.