United States v. Hamdan’s Empirical Analysis
552 F.2d 276 · 1977
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2019 · most notably United States v. Goodwin (1982), 49 Cal. 3d 1230 - Mitchell v. Superior Court (1989)
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 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 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1 · 18 U.S.C. § 3401 · 8 U.S.C. § 1306 (§ 266 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Argersinger v. Hamlin · Bloom v. Illinois · Tate v. Short · Baldwin v. New York
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.
“[i]t is not unrealistic to treat any fine in excess of $500 as a serious matter to all individuals.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The value of money changes; of course, as does the wealth of the economy. But Congress can be expected to adjust the monetary standard of [18 U.S.C.] section 1(3) so that it will continue to represent a fair judgment as to the appropriate line between petty and serious offenses. Whether [18 U.S.C.] § 1(3) reflects an appropriate referent in determining the constitutional standard in light of future changes in the value of money or in future amendments of the statute will, of course, remain a question for the courts to determine. (Citation omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“of a conviction in determining if the Constitution requires a charge to be tried to a jury. In Hamdan, two defendants were charged with making false statements in documents filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The crime was punishable with six months' imprisonment or a fine of $1,000, or both. A divided panel of this Court held that the possibility of imposition on an individual of a fine greater than $500 automatically takes an offense from the”
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.