United States v. Saunders’s Empirical Analysis
166 F.3d 907 · 1999
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably United States v. Robbins (1999), United States v. Amerson (1999)
28 federal appellate · 6 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. § 1114 · 18 U.S.C. § 115 · 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000) · 18 U.S.C. § 875 · 18 U.S.C. § 876 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Carnegie v. United States · Soberon 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hether a particular statement may properly be considered to be a threat is governed by an objective standard-whether a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of intent to harm or assault”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Pelella · State v. Perkins“a reasonably complete picture of the witness,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) Specific instances of conduct. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness’ credibility, ... may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of a witness (1) concerning the witness’ character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.”
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.