US v. K’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 22 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Holy Land Foundation for Relief & Development v. Ashcroft (2003), United States v. Hammoud (2004)
31 federal appellate · 22 district ·
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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Goldberg v. Kelly · Paul v. Davis
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“need not disclose the classified information to be presented in camera and ex parte to the court under the statute.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The unique feature of this statutory procedure is the dearth of procedural participation and protection afforded the designated entity. At no point in the proceedings establishing the administrative record is the alleged terrorist organization afforded notice of the materials used against it, or a right to comment on such materials or the developing administrative record.... The Secretary may base the findings on classified material, to which the organization has no access at any point during or after the proceeding to designate it as terrorist.... Thus the entity does not have the benefit of meaningful adversary proceedings on any of the statutory grounds, other than procedural shortfalls so obvious a Secretary of State is not likely to commit them.”
3 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.