Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 38 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Ricky Joe Nelson.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Ricky Joe Nelson Anchor | green | “evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, given the direct and circumstantial evidence, along with reasonable inferences therefrom, taken in a light most favorable to the government.” | 10 |
| 2 | United States v. Summers | green | “we will not weigh conflicting evidence or second-guess the fact-finding decisions of the jury.” | 8 |
| 3 | United States v. Vigil | green | “commission of an act which constitutes a substantial step towards commission of the substantive offense.” | 4 |
| 4 | United States Ex Rel. Bahrani v. Conagra, Inc. | green | “we review for abuse of discretion a district court's sequestration decisions.” | 4 |
| 5 | United States v. Gary Savaiano, and Gary McPherson and Bill Crummey | green | “before the crime can be completed does not preclude a finding that the steps already undertaken are substantial.” | 4 |
| 6 | United States v. Ricky Joe Nelson | green | “considering the collective inferences to be drawn from the evidence as a whole.” | 3 |
| 7 | United States v. Ricky Joe Nelson | green | “rather than examining the evidence in 'bits and pieces,' we evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence by 'considering the collective inferences to be drawn from the evidence as a whole.” | 3 |
| 8 | United States v. Kenneth Ray Johnston | green | “the exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom during trial is a time-honored practice designed to prevent the shaping of testimony by hearing what other witnesses say.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.