United States v. Whaley’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.3d 254 · 2009
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably United States v. Guzman (2010), United States v. Johnson (2011)
35 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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. § 2250 · 42 U.S.C. § 16901 (Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006) · 42 U.S.C. § 16913 · 42 U.S.C. § 16917 · 42 U.S.C. § 16919
Relies on United States v. Lopez · Mistretta v. United States · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · Yakus 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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) In general A sex offender shall register, and keep the registration current, in each jurisdiction where the offender resides, where the offender is an employee, and where the offender is a student. For initial registration purposes only, a sex offender shall also register in the jurisdiction in which convicted if such jurisdiction is different form the jurisdiction of residence.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Requiring sex offenders to update their registrations due to intrastate changes of address or employment status is a perfectly logical way to help ensure that states will more effectively be able to track sex offenders when they do cross state lines. To the extent that § 16913 regulates solely intrastate activity, its means ‘are reasonably adapted to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power,’ and therefore proper.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[tjhrough § 2250, Congress has forbidden sex offenders from using the channels of interstate commerce to evade their registration requirements, and we have no doubt that it was within its power under the Commerce Clause to do so”); United States v. Hinckley, 550 F.3d 926 , 940 (10th Cir.2008) (stating”
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.