In re Sealed Case’s Empirical Analysis
131 F.3d 208 · 1997
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Secretary of Labor v. Twentymile Coal Co. (2006), United States v. Ceja-Prado (2003)
21 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 5031 · 18 U.S.C. § 5032 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Catlin v. United States · Abney v. United States · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Fw/pbs Inc II v. City of Dallas Mjr Inc
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“warrant the exercise of Federal jurisdiction,” 18 U.S.C. § 5032 . . The Administrator did not raise, and thus we do not address, the separate question of whether the stale complaint rule, which turns on”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the ordinary case, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, at the very core of the executive function, has long been held presumptively unreviewable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Ujnder the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, Congress “revoked the district courts’ preexisting, largely unrestricted subject-matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against juveniles,” by declaring that acts otherwise criminal, when committed by juveniles, become generally noncriminal and merely constitute the entry into a state of “juvenile delinquency.” [Chambers,] 944 F.2d at 1258 . Thus, a juvenile who has committed what otherwise “would have been a crime if committed by an adult,” 18 U.S.C. § 5031 (emphasis added), has not committed a criminal offense against the United States and is therefore not within the criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts. Then, as the Sixth Circuit went on to note, Congress “partially restored” the jurisdiction it had taken away from the courts by conferring authority to proceed against juveniles alleged to have committed “acts that would be federal crimes if committed by adults,” id. at 1259 , when, but only when, the certification requirement is met. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit reasoned cogently, this certification must be a jurisdictional requirement. As it does go to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court, we must answer that question before we can legitimately opine on anything else.”
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.