United States v. Viefhaus’s Empirical Analysis
168 F.3d 392 · 1999
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 5 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Green (1999), Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists (2002)
27 federal appellate · 5 district · 7 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. § 115 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 844 · 18 U.S.C. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000) · 18 U.S.C. § 875 · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Huddleston v. United States · Dennis v. United States · Brandenburg v. Ohio · Schenck 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts must be introduced for a proper purpose; (2) the evidence must be relevant; (3) the court must make a Rule 403 determination whether the probative value of the similar acts is substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice; and (4) the court, upon request, must instruct the jury that the evidence of similar acts is to be considered only for the limited purpose for which it was admitted.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The question is whether those who hear or read the threat reasonably consider that an actual threat has been made.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If there is no question that a defendant's speech is protected by the First Amendment, the court may dismiss the charge as a matter of law.”
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.