United States v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.2d 495 · 1978
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably United States v. Bagnariol (1981), United States v. Rone (1979)
50 federal appellate · 1 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. § 1951 (Hobbs Act)
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Stirone v. United States · Patterson v. United States · Desist v. United States · Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in any way or degree obstruct[ ], delay[ ], or affect[ ] commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attémpts or conspires so to do * * * shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. # * * * * * (b) As used in this section— (2) The term ‘extortion’ means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Both Phillips and Beasley argue that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that if they were guilty of bribery, they could not be also guilty of extortion. However, appellants were indicted for extortion both by fear of economic loss and under color of official right. The circuits are unanimous in concluding that where official right is alleged, bribery and extortion are not mutually exclusive under the Hobbs Act.””
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.