United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
378 F.3d 230 · 2004
Citation profile
20 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. Snow (2006), United States v. Lin Guang (2007)
20 federal appellate ·
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 16 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 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. § 3742
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Dhinsa · United States v. Quintieri · United States v. Brown · United States v. Studley
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]wo defendants agree to commit a robbery and, during the course of that robbery, the first defendant assaults and injures a victim. The second defendant is accountable for the assault and injury to the victim (even if the second defendant had not agreed to the assault and had cautioned the first defendant to be careful not to hurt anyone) because the assaultive conduct was in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity (the robbery) and was reasonably foreseeable in connection with that criminal activity (given the nature of the offense).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Defendant] argues that § 3664(g)(2) provides the statutory authority to assign interest in restitution only to victims, and that the Court therefore had no authority to [reassign the renounced interest to the Crime Victims Fund]. We disagree. Although § 3664(g)(2) authorizes victims to make such an assignment, it does not preclude the Court from doing so ... The District Court did not err in directing that, if the victim renounced its interest in Hunter’s restitution payments, those funds would be assigned to the Crime Victims Fund.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense described in subsection (c), the court shall order, in addition to ... any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution to the victim of the offense or, if the victim is deceased, to the victim’s estate.”
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.