United States v. Lanier’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1,021 federal appellate · 334 district · 410 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,966 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably County of Sacramento v. Lewis (1998), Hope v. Pelzer (2002)
1,021 federal appellate · 334 district · 410 state decisions — followed in 37 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
reviewedUnited States v. Lanier (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton · Graham v. Connor · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Connally v. General Construction Co.
Cited together with Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Graham v. Connor · Hope v. Pelzer · County of Sacramento v. Lewis
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 2,966 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“ensures fair warning by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered”
66 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.”
57 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[I]f a constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional provision, such as the Fourth or Eighth Amendment, the claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not under the rubric of substantive due process.”
24 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.