United States v. Malik’s Empirical Analysis
16 F.3d 45 · 1994
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 9 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Fulmer (1997), Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists (2002)
46 federal appellate · 9 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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. § 115 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000) · 18 U.S.C. § 875 · 18 U.S.C. § 876
Relies on Hudson v. Palmer · Gilbert v. California · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Nicholas v. United States · Watts 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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To prove the defendant committed this crime, the Government must prove that the defendant knowingly threatened the officer. The term “knowingly,” as used in these instructions, means that the defendant was conscious and aware of his actions, realized what he was doing, and did not act out of ignorance, mistake, or accident. Now, what is a threat for purposes of this statute? A threat is a statement that expresses an intent to inflict bodily harm on someone. To be a threat, a statement must be of such a nature as can reasonably induce fear. You must determine whether a statement was a true threat when judged in this context — in its context. Among other things, you should consider whether on its face and in the circumstances in which the statement is made, a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would convey to the recipient a seriousness of purpose and the apparent prospect of execution. Whether a particular statement is a threat is governed by an objective standard whether a reasonable person in the circumstances would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by the person to whom it is made as a serious expression of intent to harm or assault. This means that you should consider the statement in light of its entire factual context, including the surrounding events, reaction of the listeners, and the manner and tone in which it is made—was made. Sometimes the tone or the way something is expressed can make a difference between a threat and something that ”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an ordinary, reasonable recipient who is familiar with the content of the letter would interpret it as a threat of injury.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“A "threat" is a serious statement expressing an intention to inflict bodily injury or death upon someone, which under the circumstances would cause apprehension in a reasonable person, as distinguished from political argument, idle or careless talk, exaggeration or something said in a joking manner. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant actually intended or was able to carry out the threat made.”
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.