United States v. Capozzi’s Empirical Analysis
486 F.3d 711 · 2007
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably United States v. DeCologero (2008), United States v. Guerrier (2011)
21 federal appellate · 6 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
reviewedthe decision below (from Massachusetts District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 4241 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Giglio v. United States · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Kastigar v. United States · Costello v. United States · United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“conclusion that, even though cross-examination was limited, the defendant was afforded sufficient leeway to establish a reasonably complete picture of the witness' veracity, bias, and motivation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e have regularly held that commerce is 'affected' for the purposes of the Hobbs Act if there is a 'realistic probability of a de minimis effect on interstate commerce.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even potential future effects may be the basis for interstate commerce jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act.”
2 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.