United States v. Kopp’s Empirical Analysis
562 F.3d 141 · 2009
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 248 (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative · United States v. Yousef · Wheeler v. MO DIR. OF REVENUE · United States v. Garcia · United States v. Villegas
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The rule does not ... require the admission of portions of a statement that are neither explanatory of nor relevant to the admitted passages.” United States v. Kopp, 562 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). See, e.g., United States v. Gramajo, 565 Fed.Appx. 723, 728 (10th Cir. 2014) (holding the district court properly excluded defendant's statement that did not”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Sanchez“innocent third party children by preventing [legal] abortions”
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.