United States v. Cliatt’s Empirical Analysis
338 F.3d 1089 · 2003
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2248 (§ 40113 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 3363 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (§ 204 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3664 · 18 U.S.C. § 7 · 42 U.S.C. § 2651
Relies on Beck v. Prupis · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Ludwig · United States v. Dubose · United States v. Miguel · United States v. Hackett
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the victim of a crime enumerated in the MRVA suffers bodily injury, and when the United States government covers her necessary medical expenses... 18 U.S.C. § 3664 requires that the restitution be paid directly to the government.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As a benefit of her employment as a member of the armed services, [the victim] received medical care without incurring an obligation to pay for it. Her position is, however, essentially the same as that of any employed person who carries first-party medical insurance. If a person who has health insurance benefits is attacked and requires hospitalization, the fact that his insurance carrier pays the hospital directly could not mean that he suffers no “loss” and that his insurance company is not entitled to restitution under § 3664(j)(l).... The presence of insurance, then, does not detract from the fact that the victim suffered the loss, even if someone else paid for it financially, and even if that someone else is the United States. Here, [the victim] suffered a “loss” equal to the amount of her medical and similar expenses. Her personal injuries generated the expenses. Functionally, under this statutory scheme, she thereby incurred those expenses as a loss and received compensation by way of the government’s payments for her care.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“While the statute defines “victim” as “a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense for which restitution may be ordered,” [ ] § 3663A(a)(2), the subsection concerning reimbursement for lost income refers to a specific victim: “[I]n the case of an offense resulting in bodily injury to a victim ... [the defendant shall] reimburse the victim for income lost by such victim as a result of such offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(2)(C) (emphasis added).”
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.