Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 122 F.3d 146 - United States v. Farrish

United States v. Farrish’s Empirical Analysis

122 F.3d 146 · 1997

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
August 2019
most recently cited

33 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably United States of America v. Ruben Feliciano Nelson Gonzalez (2000), United States v. Alfonso (1998)

33 federal appellate ·

220199720002010decided

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. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)

Relies on United States v. Lopez · Stirone v. United States · United States v. Bass · Great State Beverages, Inc. v. Wenners · Sobin 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[wjhoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned ... or both.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Because the [statute] contains this jurisdictional element, ... the Government only needs to establish a minimal effect on interstate commerce to support a violation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “any interference with or effect upon interstate commerce, whether slight, subtle or even potential ... is sufficient to uphold a prosecution under the Hobbs Act”
    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.