United States v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.3d 514 · 2008
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Warshak (2010), United States v. Erpenbeck (2008)
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 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. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on United States v. Booker · Gall v. United States · Batson v. Kentucky · Rita v. United States · Alderman 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) there is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in section 2516 of this chapter; (b) there is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception; (c) normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the government’s theory, the Act distinguishes among those who perpetrate an extortion scheme, those who acquiesce in it and those who are victimized by it ... Either the Act picks up all perpetrators, acquiescors and victims, or it picks up none of them. We say it picks up none of them and would leave it to Congress (if it wishes) to do what it has done before: Make it a crime to offer or give a bribe to a public officials. 5”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[In Brock , w]e reaffirmed the principle established in [United States v.] Kelley [ 461 F.3d 817 (6th Cir.2006) ] and Collins , that “[t]he government remains free to charge private individuals with violating the Hobbs Act when they conspire with public officials or aid and abet them in an extortion scheme; it just must satisfy the ‘property from another’ and ‘with his consent’ requirements in doing so.””
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.