In re Amy’s Empirical Analysis
591 F.3d 792 · 2009
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 2255 · 18 U.S.C. § 2259 (§ 40113 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 3771
Relies on New York v. Ferber · United States v. Crandon · United States v. Laney · United States v. Norris · United States v. Doe
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Medical services relating to physical, psychiatric, or psychological care; (2) Physical and occupational therapy or rehabilitation; (3) Necessary transportation, temporary housing, and child care expenses; (4) Lost income; (5) Attorneys’ fees, as well as other costs incurred; and (6) Any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If the Court were to adopt Amy’s reading of § 2259 and find that there is no proximate cause requirement in the statute, a restitution order could hold an individual liable for a greater amount of losses than those caused by his particular offense of conviction. This interpretation would be plainly inconsistent with how the principles of restitution and causation have historically been applied.””
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.