United States v. Jamison’s Empirical Analysis
299 F.3d 114 · 2002
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably United States v. Urban (2005), United States v. Wilkerson (2004)
21 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Lopez · Stirone v. United States · United States v. Angelilli · United States v. Arena
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (b) As used in this section— (3) The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same States through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a robbery or extortion that depletes the assets of a business operating in interstate commerce will satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of the Hobbs Act by a minimal showing of effect on commerce.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Robberies or extortions perpetrated upon individuals are prosecutable under the Hobbs Act when ... the crime depletes the assets of an individual who is directly engaged in interstate commerce”
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.