Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 6 F.3d 586 - United States v. Freeman

United States v. Freeman’s Empirical Analysis

6 F.3d 586 · 1993

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
June 2020
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably United States v. Perez (1997), United States v. Tomblin (1995)

48 federal appellate · 2 district ·

4701993200020102020decided

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. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Kolender v. Lawson · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · Pereira 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he Hobbs Act reaches anyone who actually exercises official powers, regardless of whether those powers were conferred by election, appointment, or some other method.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “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.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'[W]here as here, the district court uses great diligence in instructing the jury to separate the evidence, severance is unnecessary because the prejudicial effects of the evidence of codefendants are”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.