Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 118 F.3d 298 - No. 96-40575

No. 96-40575’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2025

3 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

701997200020102020decided

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

Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Russello v. United States · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Wayte v. United States · Gutierrez De Martinez v. Lamagno

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

  1. “some of the considerations or circumstances that indicate the presence of a sufficient Federal interest. These include generally applicable considerations that would ordinarily influence a prosecutor in deciding whether to exercise Federal jurisdiction: the gravity of the Federal offense as compared to the State or local offense, the relationship of the offense to another Federal offense committed by the accused, and the relative likelihood of prompt and effective investigation and prosecution by Federal, State or local authorities in light of available resources and the nature and scope of the criminal activity involved.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “The Committee has limited the provision to the more serious Federal felonies in the belief that the Federal government should still defer to State authorities for less serious offense[s] by juveniles. The Committee intends that the Federal prosecutor will consider the factors set forth in section 205 (with particular attention directed to subsection (b)(2)[) ] in deciding whether there is a “sufficient Federal interest in the case.” It is believed necessary to afford the Attorney General this authority when a serious crime occurs in which there is a special Federal interest.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “the age and social background of the juvenile; the nature of the alleged offense; the extent and nature of the juvenile’s prior delinquency record; the juvenile’s present intellectual development and psychological maturity; the nature of past treatment efforts and the juvenile’s response to such efforts; the availability of programs designed to treat the juvenile’s behavioral problems.”
    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.