United States v. Brecht’s Empirical Analysis
540 F.2d 45 · 1976
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2004 · most notably Perrin v. United States (1979), United States v. Culbert (1978)
44 federal appellate · 2 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 27 U.S.C. § 205 (Federal Alcohol Administration Act)
Relies on United States v. Bass · Desist v. United States · O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden · Rewis v. United States · United States v. District Court
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined not more than $10,-000 or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. ’ (b) As used in this section— (2) The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, under color of official right.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he cases interpreting the Hobbs Act have repeatedly stressed that the element of 'fear' required by the Act can be satisfied by putting the victim in fear of economic loss.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The] legislative history of the [Travel] Act is limited, but does reveal that § 1952 was aimed primarily at organized crime and, more specifically, at persons who reside in one State while operating or managing illegal activities in another. . [A]n expansive [interpretation of the] Travel Act would alter sensitive federal-state relationships, could overextend limited federal police resources and . would transform relatively minor state offenses into federal felonies.”
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.