Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 40 F.3d 95 - United States v. Collins

United States v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis

40 F.3d 95 · 1994

Citation profile

115
cited by 115 later decisions
2
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

81 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Diaz (2001), United States v. Wilkerson (2004)

81 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

5701994200020102020decided

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. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Arizona v. Fulminante · Moran v. Burbine

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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “cumulative effect on interstate commerce.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Both direct and indirect effects on interstate commerce may violate section 1951(a). The government’s “depletion of assets” theory falls into the indirect category. This theory [indirect] relies on a minimal adverse effect upon interstate commerce by a “depletion of the resources of the business which permits the reasonable inference that its operations are obstructed or delayed.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “we are still a federal, not a unitary government and neither the constitutional limits on the power of the national government, nor the jurisdictional requirement of some connection with interstate commerce may be ignored.”
    2 later decisions 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.