United States v. Yousef’s Empirical Analysis
327 F.3d 56 · 2003
Citation profile
201 federal appellate · 30 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 531 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Skilling v. United States (2010), Yuen Jin v. Mukasey (2008)
201 federal appellate · 30 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Chapman v. State of California
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 531 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We regrettably are no closer now ... to an international consensus on the definition of terrorism or even its proscription; the mere existence of the phrase “state-sponsored terrorism” proves the absence of' agreement on basic terms among a large number of States that terrorism violates [customary] international law. Moreover, there continues to be strenuous disagreement among States about what actions do or do not constitute terrorism, nor have we shaken ourselves free of the cliché that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” We thus conclude ... that terrorism—unlike piracy, war crimes, and crimes against humanity—does not provide a basis for universal jurisdiction [under customary international law].”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“We will not consider an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief.”) In any event, based on my thorough review of the lengthy record, I find that the arguments lack merit. . I note that, in the body of his brief, Klein does not mention § 327(a) or the Bankruptcy Code's disinterestedness standard. Instead, he argues that”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“unilateral declarations, instructions to diplomatic agents, laws and ordinances, and in a lesser degree, to the writings of authoritative jurists,”
3 later decisions 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.