Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 180 F.3d 380 - United States v. Arena

United States v. Arena’s Empirical Analysis

180 F.3d 380 · 1999

Citation profile

116
cited by 116 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
May 2020
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 116 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2020 · most notably Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc. (2003), United States of America v. Zolton Williams (2000)

37 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

8301999200020102020decided

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. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 455

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Glasser v. United States · Liteky et al United States · United States v. Lopez · Stirone 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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “where the property in question is the victim's right to conduct a business free from threats of violence and physical harm, a person who has committed or threatened violence or physical harm in order to induce abandonment of that right has obtained, or attempted to obtain, property within the meaning of the Hobbs Act.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “federal prosecutor may, in deciding whether to pursue a subsequent prosecution, take into consideration what he deems an `inadequate result' obtained in the state trial”
    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.