Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 F.3d 553 - United States v. Stillo

United States v. Stillo’s Empirical Analysis

57 F.3d 553 · 1995

Citation profile

109
cited by 109 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

75 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 109 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2020 · most notably Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc. (2003), United States v. Frost (1997)

75 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

6501995200020102020decided

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. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2

Relies on United States v. Lopez · Stirone v. United States · Bibby v. United States · United States v. Lane · Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. United States

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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “must rebut the dual presumption that a jury will (1) capably sort through the evidence and (2) follow limiting instructions from the court”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “minimal potential effect on commerce is all that need be proven to support a conviction [under the Hobbs Act].”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “`as a legal matter, an extortionist can violate the Hobbs Act without either seeking or receiving money or anything else. A loss to, or interference with the rights of, the victim is all that is required.'”
    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.