United States v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 859 · 10 U.S.C. § 866 · 10 U.S.C. § 892 · 10 U.S.C. § 934 · 18 U.S.C. § 13 (Assimilative Crimes Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2512 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 7 · 47 U.S.C. § 553
Relies on Williams v. United States · United States v. Prater · United States v. Weiss · United States v. Graf · United States v. Felty
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen an accused pleads guilty to an Article 134 offense alleging a violation of a penal code adopted as federal law by virtue of the Assimilative Crimes Act, we advise military judges: (1) to ensure there are explicit, informed admissions by the accused on the record as to the federal legislative jurisdiction (e.g., exclusive or concurrent) of the federal enclave in question, and (2) to obtain from counsel their assurances that they have conducted a diligent search of federal criminal law, including specific punitive articles of the UCMJ, and that an applicable offense for the misconduct committed is not defined therein.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.