United States v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis
989 F.2d 377 · 1993
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably United States v. Forney (1993), United States v. Alegria (1999)
32 federal appellate · 3 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. § 3742
Relies on Santobello v. New York · Wade v. United States · Fussell v. Price · Sanders v. City of Brady, Texas · United States v. Saucedo
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.
“When a Defendant asserts that the government breached an agreement that leaves discretion to the prosecutor, the district court's role is limited to deciding whether the government made the determination [not to file the motion] in good faith.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[u]pon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court then concluded that none of these factors were present in the instant case and denied the defendants' motion. Aplt. App. at 208-09. The district court proceeded to sentence Berger and Korman in accordance with their plea agreements. II. 35 On appeal, Berger argues that the district court erred in denying his motion because the government's refusal to file a 5K1.1 request was based on an unconstitutional motive. He contends the prosecutor's refusal violated his right to due process because it”
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.