Roy v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
416 F.2d 874 · 1969
Citation profile
108 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2021 · most notably Rogers v. United States (1975), United States v. Orozco-Santillan (1990)
108 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
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. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000)
Relies on United States v. American Trucking Associations · Watts v. United States · Noto v. United States · Watts v. United States
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm upon or to take the life of the President. . . .”
29 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... [I]t appears that [section 871] was designed in part to prevent an evil other than assaults upon the President. It is our view that the other evil is the detrimental effect upon Presidential activity and movement that may result simply from a threat upon the President’s life. ****** If a threat is made in a context or under such circumstances wherein it appears that it is a serious threat, and the President or his advisers are made aware of the existence of the threat, then the threat would tend to have a restrictive effect upon the free exercise of Presidential responsibilities, regardless of whether there is any actual danger to the President. Thus, even though the maker of the threat does not have an actual intention to assault the President, an apparently serious threat may cause the mischief or evil toward which the statute was in part directed.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... [T]he statute was designed in part to prevent an evil other than assaults upon the President or incitement to assault the President. It is our view that the other evil is the detrimental effect upon Presidential activity and movement that may result simply from a threat upon the President’s life.”
4 later decisions 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.