United States v. Shackney’s Empirical Analysis
333 F.2d 475 · 1964
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2016 · most notably United States v. Kozminski (1988), Bayh v. Sonnenburg (1991)
27 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 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
Relies on Connally v. General Construction Co. · Bell v. United States · Lanzetta v. State New Jersey · Jordan v. De George · Civil Rights Cases
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e see no basis for concluding that because the statute can be satisfied by a credible threat of imprisonment, it should also be considered satisfied by a threat to have the employee sent back to the country of his origin, at least absent circumstances which would make such deportation equivalent to imprisonment or worse ... a holding in involuntary servitude means to us action by the master causing the servant to have, or to believe he has, no way to avoid continued service or confinement ... not a situation where the servant knows he has a choice between continued service and freedom, even if the master has led him to believe that the choice may entail consequences that are exceedingly bad ... While a credible threat of deportation may come close to the line, it still leaves the employee with a choice, and we do not see how we could fairly bring it within § 1584 without encompassing other types of threat ... Friction over employment punctuated by hotheaded threats is well known and inevitable. But the subjugation of another’s will is more easily accused than accomplished. There must be “law or force” that “com pels performance or a continuance of the service” for the statute to be violated.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'incapable of making a rational choice.' " Id., at 1212-1213 (quoting United States v. Shackney, 333 F.2d 475 , 488 (CA2 1964) (Dimock, J., concurring)). 20 The Court of Appeals' definition of involuntary servitude conflicts with the definitions adopted by other Courts of Appeals. Writing for the Second Circuit in United States v. Shackney, supra, Judge Friendly reasoned that 21 "a holding in involuntary servitude means to us action by the master causing the servant to have, or to believe he has, no way to avoid continued service or confinement, . . . not a situation where the servant knows he has a choice between continued service and freedom, even if the master has led him to believe that the choice may entail consequences that are exceedingly bad.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'To have an arbitrary classification which will resolve with equal facility all of the cases that would arise under the statute is indeed a tempting prospect. It is much harder to have to work under a statute which will raise difficult questions in the borderline cases inevitable whenever the application of a statute depends upon an appraisal of the state of the human mind. 333 F.2d at 488.' 83 * * * * * 84”
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.