Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 982 F.2d 965 - United States v. Clark

United States v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

982 F.2d 965 · 1993

Citation profile

131
cited by 131 later decisions
7
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

71 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Carroll (1994), United States v. Layne (1999)

71 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions

7201993200020102020decided

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. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 856 (§ 416 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Rhode Island v. Innis · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Pennsylvania v. Muniz

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

  1. “identify specifically which statements or actions by a defendant constitute an obstruction of justice.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]f the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[b]ecause we are able to determine from the context of the district court's otherwise generalized findings, which statements the court found warranted the enhancement for obstruction of justice, and because we find no clear error with respect thereto, we affirm the sentence”
    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.