In re Antrobus’s Empirical Analysis
519 F.3d 1123 · 2008
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably United States v. Monzel (2011), Ford v. Pryor (2008)
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2339B (§ 303 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3771 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1453 (§ 5 of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Relies on Pierce v. Underwood · Morissette v. United States · William Marbury v. James Madison · Allied Chemical Corporation v. Daiflon Inc · Cheney v. United States District Court for District of Columbia
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense;”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen the legislature uses certain language in one part of the statute and different language in another, the court assumes different meanings were intended.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. In re Brown“simultaneously affords the government with the ability to obtain ordinary appellate review of the [restitution] decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. In re Brown
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.