United States v. Probber’s Empirical Analysis
170 F.3d 345 · 1999
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably United States of America v. David Meyers (2000), Securities Exchange Commission v. Monarch Funding Corp. (1999)
12 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1014 · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343
Relies on Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Spencer v. Kemna · United States v. Porter · Marinoff v. A.F.A. Asset Service
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“has been willing to presume the existence of collateral consequences sufficient to satisfy the case or controversy requirement; or in a practice that it views as 'effectively the same,' the Court has been willing 'to count collateral consequences that are remote and unlikely to occur.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“as required by Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. We disagree. 40 Article III limits subject matter jurisdiction to”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“most criminal convictions do in fact entail adverse collateral legal consequences,”
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.