United States v. Lyons’s Empirical Analysis
453 F.3d 1222 · 2006
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Schad v. Arizona · Secretary of State of Maryland v. Joseph H Munson Company Inc · Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The difficulty with [defendants’] challenge is that the court’s instruction was a nearly verbatim quotation from Madigan [v. Telemarketing Assocs., Inc., 538 U.S. 600 , 624, 123 S.Ct. 1829 , 155 L.Ed.2d 793 (2003) ]. It is difficult to understand the claim that the jury instruction was “flatly prohibited by the Supreme Court in Madigan ” when the instruction quite appropriately quoted the controlling law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sarausad v. Porter
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.