United States v. Bohn’s Empirical Analysis
959 F.2d 389 · 1992
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably United States v. Lieberman (1992), United States v. Harvey (1993)
33 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 28 U.S.C. § 2106 · 31 U.S.C. § 5324 (§ 1354 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986)
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Santobello v. New York · United States v. American Ry Express Co Southeastern Express Co · Schenberg v. Bond · Bowen v. United States Postal Service
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[requiring conditional cross-appeals ... would oblige [parties] to file conditional cross-appeals reflexively, anticipating all possible appellate adjustments of the [judgment] in advance of knowing precisely the nature of the appellant’s challenge. That would burden appellees (and courts) with no appreciable benefit to appellate practice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“so severe as to create an undue risk of deterring others from subsequent challenges to sentence components that might be unlawful.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Though the prospect of increasing one component of the sentence creates an arguable deterrent to a challenge to another component that might be unlawful, we think the legitimate purposes of sentencing counsel against an absolute rule barring all increases of any component after another component has been successfully challenged.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.