Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 163 F.3d 855 - United States v. Ehsan

United States v. Ehsan’s Empirical Analysis

163 F.3d 855 · 1998

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
2
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably United States of America v. Photogrammetric Data Services Incorporated (2001), United States v. Lindh (2002)

14 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

1901998200020102020decided

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 50 U.S.C. § 1701 (International Emergency Economic Powers Act)

Relies on United States v. Bass · Chapman v. United States · Moskal v. United States · Swan Finch Company v. United States · Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Edwards

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

  1. “the actions and policies of the Government of Iran.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The obvious purpose of the order is to isolate Iran from trade with the United States.... This broad export ban reflected the President’s appraisal of the nation’s interest in sanctioning Iran’s sponsorship of international terrorism, its frustration of the Middle East peace process, and its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Rather, there must be a `grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the language and structure of the Act, such that even after a court has seize[d] everything from which aid can be derived, it is still left with an ambiguous statute.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.