Barber v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
158 federal appellate · 20 district · 23 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3624 · 18 U.S.C. § 4161 · 28 U.S.C. § 991
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · United States v. Mead Corp. · Mistretta v. United States · Weaver v. Graham
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 342 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“after considering text, structure, history and purpose, there remains a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute such that the Court must simply guess as to what Congress intended.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Justice SCALIA, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. I agree with the Court that intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to a family member”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“no grievous ambiguity or uncertainty that would trigger”
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.