United States v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis
426 F.2d 1073 · 1970
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2013 · most notably Perez v. United States (1971), United States v. Natale (1975)
34 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (Mann Act)) · 18 U.S.C. § 875 · 18 U.S.C. § 891 · 18 U.S.C. § 894 · 21 U.S.C. § 331 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000A (Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Wickard v. Filburn · United States v. Darby · Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States · Katzenbach v. McClung
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Loan-sharking activities can persuasively be characterized as generally in or affecting commerce precisely because such practices depend for their full effect on monopoly in metropolitan areas and national, or at least multi-state, organization. This provided a logical basis for congressional focus on loan-sharking rather than on a variety of other crimes which may be far more 'local' in nature, e.g., robbery, burglary, larceny.” United States v. Perez, 426 F.2d 1073 , 1079 (2d Cir.1970) (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent““[A]lmost all Federal criminal statutes are so drafted that the connection with Federal interests — the Federal jurisdictional peg — must be proved in each case because such connection is incorporated into the definition of the offense. See, e.g., The Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §1951 (obstructing or affecting interstate commerce or movements of commodities in commerce by robbery or extortion).” (Emphasis added.) Perez, 426 F.2d at 1075 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Congress can regulate intrastate activity without any showing in a particular case that the activity affected interstate commerce, provided that a proper determination has been made that such intrastate activity, considered as a class, does have such effect. . ” United States v. Perez, 426 F.2d 1073, 1078 (2d Cir. 1970).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.