United States v. Hilton’s Empirical Analysis
167 F.3d 61 · 1999
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 13 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2013 · most notably Ashcroft Attorney General v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Kevin Concannon Commissioner Maine Department of Human Services Maine Attorney General (2001)
27 federal appellate · 13 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. § 2252A (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2256 · 28 U.S.C. § 455
Relies on Almendarez-Torres v. United States · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Liteky et al United States · Kolender v. Lawson
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Thus, a defendant who honestly believes that the individual depicted in the image appears to be 18 years old or older (and is believed by a jury), or who can show that he knew the image was created by having a youthful-looking adult pose for it, must be acquitted, so long as the image was not presented or marketed as if it contained a real minor.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Osborne Court explicitly approved the following legislative goals: stamping out child pornography because it often serves as a record of abuse of real children; and denying pedophiles and would-be child abusers access to child pornography, which could be used to seduce or coerce children into sexual activity. Osborne, 495 U.S. at 110-11 , 110 S.Ct. 1691 . The former remains intricately tied to the need to protect real children represented in the pictures, but the latter marks a subtle, yet crucial, extension of a state’s legitimate interest to the protection of children not actually depicted in prohibited images.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.