United States v. Timilty’s Empirical Analysis
148 F.3d 1 · 1998
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Lyndonville Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier (2000), Huml v. Vlazny (2006)
14 federal appellate · 7 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. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3563 · 18 U.S.C. § 3565 · 18 U.S.C. § 3583 · 18 U.S.C. § 3613 · 18 U.S.C. § 3614 · 18 U.S.C. § 3615 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663
Relies on U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership · United States v. Bongiorno · United States v. Brown · United States v. Palma · United States v. Jose Fuentes
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“execution against the property of the person fined in like manner as judgments in civil cases.” 18 U.S.C. § 3613 (e), repealed by Pub.L. No. 104-132, § 207(c)(3). 9 . In each case, the defendants were convicted of the crimes underlying the restitution orders before the April 24, 1996 effective date of the MVRA. See Pub.L. No. 104-132, § 211 (making MVRA amendments applicable to defendants”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... [0]ther types of restitution, which, when paid, will not increase public revenues (say, restitution to an individual victim of a crime), do not come within the [FDCPA’s] statutory encincture. In short, we cannot isolate a single word— “restitution” — and conclude that every order bearing that label automatically falls within the FDCPA’s grasp. The federal government may collect under the FDCPA only restitution that is “owing to the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 3002 (3).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he amended restitution provision applies only to sentencing proceedings where the defendant is convicted on or after April 24, 1996,” United States v. Timilty, 148 F.3d 1 , 2 n. 1 (1st Cir.1998), in each case we applied the pre-MVRA law in effect at the time of the convictions. See United States v. Rostoff, 164 F.3d 63 , 66 n. 3 (1st Cir.1999) (”
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.