Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 999 F.2d 474 - United States v. Gary

United States v. Gary’s Empirical Analysis

999 F.2d 474 · 1993

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2021 · most notably Gross v. Burggraf Construction Co. (1995), United States v. Huskey (1998)

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

1901993200020102020decided

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 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Bourjaily v. United States · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Yagow v. United States · Foy v. Northeast Suburban Life

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

  1. “[p]rior sentences imposed in unrelated cases are to be counted separately. Prior sentences imposed in related cases are to be treated as one sentence”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[c]ases are considered related if they (1) occurred on a single occasion, (2) were part of a single common scheme or plan, or (3) were consolidated for trial or sentencing.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “'Generally [hearsay evidence] is not admissible ... because traditional conditions of admissibility, including that the witness be present at the trial, testify under oath, and be subject to cross-examination, all of which together permit a jury to evaluate the reliability and trustworthiness of a statement, are not present.'”
    1 later decision 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.