United States v. Vitillo’s Empirical Analysis
490 F.3d 314 · 2007
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably United States v. Kemp (2007), United States v. Berrios (2012)
20 federal appellate · 14 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 New Jersey District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 3664 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 666 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United States v. Olano · Johnson v. United States · United States v. Young · United States v. Cotton · Costello v. United States
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, (2) sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet, and (3) allows the defendant to show with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction in the event of a subsequent prosecution.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to— (3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity, and thereafter performs or attempts to perform— (A) an act described in paragraph (1) or (3) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“a person authorized to act on behalf of ... a government and ... includes a servant or employee, and a partner, director, officer, manager, and representative.” 18 U.S.C. § 666 (d)(1). The Third Circuit has noted that the § 666(d)(1) list is not exhaustive, however, and that an”
1 later decision 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.