Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 975 F.2d 397 - United States v. Lechuga

United States v. Lechuga’s Empirical Analysis

975 F.2d 397 · 1992

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
2
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably United States v. Buchanan (1995), Lester Olsen v. William Correiro Alan Silvia the City of Fall River (1999)

36 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

3301992200020102020decided

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. § 3146 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553

Relies on Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Pelaes v. United States · United States Steel Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

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

  1. “the failure to appear is treated under Sec. 3C1.1 (Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice) as an obstruction of the underlying offense; and the failure to appear count and the count(s) for the underlying offense are grouped together under Sec. 3D1.2(c).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “to appear before the court as required by the conditions of his release.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[w]hen a defendant has been convicted of an underlying offense and a failure to appear offense ... the Application Notes to the guidelines explicitly provide that those offenses should be grouped for sentencing.”
    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.