Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 976 F.2d 608 - United States v. Chimal

United States v. Chimal’s Empirical Analysis

976 F.2d 608 · 1992

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
1
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

42 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably United States v. Abu Ali (2008), United States v. Williamson (1995)

42 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

440199220002010decided

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. § 1163 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Doyle v. Ohio · Opper v. United States · Jenkins v. Anderson · Smith 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “repeated acts over a period of time, unless it is clear that each instance was purely opportune.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “An acceptance of responsibility determination by a district court is a question of fact reviewable under a clearly erroneous standard. The burden of proof is on the defendant and the quantum of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. Whether a defendant should be granted a two level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility depends upon whether a defendant clearly demonstrates a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “substantial independent evidence which would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the statement. It is sufficient if the corroboration supports the essential facts admitted sufficiently to justify a jury inference of their truth. Those facts plus the other evidence besides the admission must, of course, be sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    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.