United States v. Cabrera’s Empirical Analysis
208 F.3d 309 · 2000
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Rhode Island District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998) · 18 U.S.C. § 1029
Relies on Burlington Northern Railroad v. Oklahoma Tax Commission · Arnold v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · United States v. Noah · United States v. Rosario-Diaz · United States v. Pearce
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“jury viewing this paraphernalia as a whole could reasonably have deemed the system specially designed for making a false identification document.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“implement or impression specially designed or primarily used for making ... a false identification document,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the system also included digitized templates of various official identification documents,”
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.