United States v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
985 F.2d 901 · 1993
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2013 · most notably United States v. Goines (1993), United States v. James (1994)
41 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Blumenthal v. United States · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Eisenstadt v. Baker
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]s long as the conspiracy continues toward its goal to achieve a common objective, it remains a single conspiracy despite the fact that participants may change or perform different roles or functions at different times.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“upon reasonable argument from counsel, there is a presumption that the Court should conduct an in camera inspection of documents to determine whether the documents are producible under the Jencks Act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“need not be aware of all the details of the conspiracy in order to be a co-conspirator.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.