United States v. Root’s Empirical Analysis
296 F.3d 1222 · 2002
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably United States v. Meek (2004), United States v. Murrell (2004)
53 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 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. § 2243 · 18 U.S.C. § 2246 · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 2422 (White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (Mann Act)) · 18 U.S.C. § 2423 (White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (Mann Act))
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Harris v. Garner · United States v. Mandujano · United States v. Baptista-Rodriguez · United States v. Oviedo
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, ... knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than ten years or for life.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) If the victim was in the custody, care, or supervisory control of the defendant, increase by 2 levels. (2) If subsection (b)(1) does not apply; and — ■ (A) the offense involved the knowing misrepresentation of a participant’s identity to (i) persuade, induce, entice, or coerce the victim to engage in prohibited sexual conduct; or (ii) facilitate transportation or travel, by the victim or a participant, to engage in prohibited sexual conduct; or (B) a participant otherwise unduly influenced the victim to engage in prohibited sexual conduct, increase by 2 levels. (3) If a computer or an Internet-access device was used to (A) persuade, induce, entice, or coerce the victim to engage in prohibited sexual conduct; or (B) facilitate transportation or travel, by the victim or a participant, to engage in prohibited sexual conduct, increase by 2 levels. (4) If (A) subsection (a)(1) applies; and (B) none of subsections (b)(1) through (b)(3) applies, decrease by 6 levels.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus; (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening of another by a hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or (D)the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another person who has not attained the age of 16 years with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;”
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.