Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 993 F.2d 1368 - United States v. Khan

United States v. Khan’s Empirical Analysis

993 F.2d 1368 · 1993

Citation profile

173
cited by 173 later decisions
4
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

89 federal appellate · 4 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 173 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 18 Cal. 4th 349 - People v. Kipp (1998), United States v. Saccoccia (1995)

89 federal appellate · 4 district · 17 state decisions

1320199320002010decided

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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 963

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Tucker · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community 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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he operative treaty in [the] case contain[ed] the following language: `A person surrendered can in no case be [prosecuted] ... for any other crime or offence, or on account of any other matters, than those for which the extradition shall have taken place.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We also review for abuse of discretion a district court's decision on balancing probative value against prejudicial effect under Fed. R. Evid. 403.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “if the appellant fails to object to evidence under Rule 404(b) ... in the district court, we review the admission of the evidence for plain error.”
    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.