Kelly v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
620 federal appellate · 89 district · 216 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,498 later decisions (54 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Grogan v. Garner (1991), United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. (1989)
620 federal appellate · 89 district · 216 state decisions — followed in 31 states
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
reviewedRobinson v. McGuigan (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005)
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill · Perez v. Ledesma
Cited together with Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Davenport · United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection · Younger v. Harris · United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd.
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 2,498 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because criminal proceedings focus on the State’s interests in rehabilitation and punishment, rather than the victim’s desire for compensation, we conclude that restitution orders imposed in such proceedings operate “for the benefit of’ the State. Similarly, they are not assessed “for ... compensation” of the victim. The sentence following a criminal conviction necessarily considers the penal and rehabilitative interests of the State. Those interests are sufficient to place restitution orders within the meaning of § 523(a)(7).”
198 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit”
34 later decisions quote this exact passage“Restitution is an effective rehabilitative penalty because it forces the defendant to confront, in concrete terms, the harm his actions have caused. Such a penalty will affect the defendant differently than a traditional fine, paid to the State as an abstract and impersonal entity, and often calculated without regard to the harm the defendant has caused. Similarly, the direct relation between the harm and the punishment gives restitution a more precise deterrent effect than a traditional fine.”
22 later decisions 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.