Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 246 F.3d 186 - United States v. Kim

United States v. Kim’s Empirical Analysis

246 F.3d 186 · 2001

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
November 2022
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably United States v. Stewart (2001), United States v. Svoboda (2003)

22 federal appellate · 3 district ·

280200120102020decided

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

Relies on Pereira v. United States · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil Co. · United States, v. Jacinto Rodriguez-Moreno · Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. · United States v. Cabrales

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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “caused communications to be transmitted into and out of the district”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The amendment was prompted by the failed prosecution of an individual who made a fraudulent telephone call from Mexico to the United States and successfully argued that § 1343 did not cover such a foreign communication. See S.Rep. No. 1873, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1956). With this case in mind, Congress acted to “close [the] loophole” that limited prosecution to eases in which the fraudulent transmission occurred between two states, and explicitly extended the coverage of § 1343 to foreign communications. See H.R. Rep. No. 2385, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1956), reprinted in 1956 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3091, 3092.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Brennan did not examine venue under the first paragraph of § 3237(a), and its holding does not impact that paragraph_”). 9 . We did not need to answer that question in Brennan because”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.