Biton v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
62 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2331 (Material Support to Terrorism Prohibition Enhancement Act of 2004) · 18 U.S.C. § 2333 (Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019) · 18 U.S.C. § 2336 · 18 U.S.C. § 2337 · 28 U.S.C. § 1330 (§ 2 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1602 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1604 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · International Shoe Co. v. Washington · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended- (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“by a preponderance of the evidence that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[1] a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or [2] a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or [3] the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or [4] the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or [5] an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or [6] the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.