Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 963 F.2d 641 - United States v. Barr

United States v. Barr’s Empirical Analysis

963 F.2d 641 · 1992

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
1
states following
November 2022
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably United States v. Perez (2002), United States v. Graham (2001)

32 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

2501992200020102020decided

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

Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Burns v. United States · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub

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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “First, we examine whether there was a common goal among the conspirators. Second, we look at the nature of the scheme to determine whether the agreement contemplated bringing to pass a continuous result that will not continue without the continuous cooperation of the conspirators. Third, we examine the extent to which the participants overlap in the various dealings.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Before a district court can depart upward on a ground not identified as a ground for upward departure either in the presentence report or in a prehear-ing submission by the Government, Rule 32 [of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] requires that the district court give the parties reasonable notice that it is contemplating such a ruling.”
    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.