Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 14 F.3d 536 - United States v. Hudson

United States v. Hudson’s Empirical Analysis

14 F.3d 536 · 1994

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
October 2012
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 3 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2012 · most notably Hudson v. United States (1997), Doe v. Poritz (1995)

24 federal appellate · 3 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 16 states

570199420002010decided

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 12 U.S.C. § 1818 · 12 U.S.C. § 504 (§ 29 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) · 12 U.S.C. § 84 · 12 U.S.C. § 93 · 18 U.S.C. § 2

Relies on Brady v. United States · Illinois v. Allen · United States v. Halper · Austin v. United States · United States v. Sasser

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

  1. “we are convinced that the government’s nonparticipation sanction was solely designed to protect the integrity of the banking industry by purging the system of corrupt influences. We therefore hold that [appellants’ irrevocable ban from further participation in banking activities is solely remedial even though it carries the sting of punishment in the eyes of [appellants. [Id. at 542 (emphasis added).]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Appellants contend that the above quoted language means that unless a sanction is 'solely' remedial, i.e., not serving deterrent or retributive ends, it is punishment. This position is confirmed by the recent Supreme Court decision in Austin v. United States.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “that a sanction should be considered punishment if it is not solely remedial,”
    2 later decisions 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.