In re Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
552 F.3d 1285 · 2008
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 2025
8 federal appellate · 4 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. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3771
Relies on Cheney v. United States District Court for District of Columbia
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“• First, the court should determine what was the offense of conviction, based solely on facts reflected in the jury verdict [or admitted by the defendant]; • Second, the court should make the factual findings to determine whether any person or persons were “directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of [that]. Federal offense.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“identif[ies] the behavior constituting 'commission of a Federal offense.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a party may qualify as a victim, even though it may not have been the target of the crime, as long as it suffers harm as a result of the crime's commission.”
2 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.