United States v. J.H.H.’s Empirical Analysis
22 F.3d 821 · 1994
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably United States v. Dinwiddie (1996), United States v. Thomas (1997)
40 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 5031 · 18 U.S.C. § 5037 · 18 U.S.C. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000) · 18 U.S.C. § 876 · 42 U.S.C. § 3631
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · United States v. O'Brien · Carnegie v. United States · Rav v. City of St Paul Minnesota · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“dangerously close to permitting the factfinder to adjudge appellants guilty by association”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[A]lthough cross-burning can be done with the specific intent to intimidate and to interfere with the exercise of protected rights, in other situations, cross burning may be done for the sole purpose of making a political statement. As reprehensible as such a statement may be, 'we cannot take away the liberty of groups whose views most people detest without jeopardizing the liberty of all others whose views, though popular today, may themselves be detested tomorrow.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.””
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.