United States v. Starr’s Empirical Analysis
533 F.3d 985 · 2008
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably United States v. Young (2010), United States v. Phelps (2008)
30 federal appellate · 3 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996)
Relies on Gall v. United States · Rita v. United States · Sells v. United States · United States v. Jacobsen · Florida v. Jimeno
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The cross reference in subsection (c)(1) is to be construed broadly and includes all instances where the offense involved employing, using, persuading, inducing, enticing, coercing, transporting, permitting, or offering or seeking by notice or advertisement, a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A constructive amendment occurs when the essential elements of the offense as charged in the indictment are altered in such a manner ... that the jury is allowed to convict the defendant of an offense different from or in addition to the offenses charged in the indictment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Starr was present during the officers' full search of his home, but remained silent and made no attempt to impede their efforts or to express his concern that they were exceeding the scope of his consent. Given these facts, we conclude that a reasonable person would have believed that the officers had authority to conduct a full search of Starr's home including his closet and a roll of film; therefore, this warrantless search did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was authorized by Starr's consent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Weaver
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.