United States v. Silverio’s Empirical Analysis
335 F.3d 183 · 2003
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on United States v. Badalamenti · Jund v. Town Hempstead · United States v. Henry · United States v. Fabian · United States v. Perrotta
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is the law in our circuit that '[i]f the defendants' conduct produces any interference with or effect upon interstate commerce, whether slight, subtle or even potential, it is sufficient to uphold a prosecution under the Hobbs Act.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) where the victim directly participated in interstate commerce; (ii) where the defendant targeted the victim "because of her status as an employee at a company participating in interstate commerce"; (iii) where the assets of a company engaged in interstate commerce were, or would have been, depleted as a result of the harm or potential harm, respectively, to the individual victim; or (iv) where the defendant targeted the assets of a business engaged in interstate commerce rather than an individual.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“left to withdraw as much cash as he could,”
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.