United States v. Patrick’s Empirical Analysis
965 F.2d 1390 · 1992
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably United States v. Elder (1996), State v. Osie (Slip Opinion) (2014)
49 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Powell · Jeffers v. United States · Foy v. Northeast Suburban Life · Holmes v. United States
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Wjhile proof of a supervisory or managerial relationship requires a showing of some degree of control by the defendant over the other persons, such proof is not required to show that a defendant acted as an organizer. An organizer can be defined as a person-who puts together a number of people engaged in separate activities and arranges them in one essentially orderly operation or enterprise.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A prospective juror's failure to disclose material information is grounds for a new trial if it demonstrates bias. If a juror is found to have deliberately concealed material information, bias may be inferred. If, however, information is not concealed deliberately, the movant must show actual bias.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]here is no reason to stay the forfeiture proceedings here because we affirm [defendant's] conviction and because we uphold the district court's finding that the petitioners have no valid claim to the forfeited property.”
2 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.