United States v. Farr’s Empirical Analysis
419 F.3d 621 · 2005
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
September 2010
most recently cited
9 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co. · Tyler v. Runyon · United States v. Bok · United States v. Grimes · United States v. Johnson
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the victim subsequently discovers further losses, the victim shall have 60 days after discovery of those losses in which to petition the court for an amended restitution order.” Ibid.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[G]iven the clear time limit set forth in § 3664(d)(5), it cannot be said that it was Congress’s intent to allow district courts to order restitution at any time. The statutory language in § 3664(d)(5) sets forth an unambiguous requirement that courts ordering restitution as a condition of supervised release do so within ninety days of sentencing. We may not overlook the statute’s plain language to further what may be a broader statutory purpose.”
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.