United States v. King’s Empirical Analysis
608 F.3d 1122 · 2010
Citation profile
12 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3583 · 18 U.S.C. § 3605 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Clinton v. City of New York · Arciniega v. Freeman · United States v. Weber · United States v. Soltero · United States v. Betts
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A court, after imposing a sentence, may transfer jurisdiction over a probationer or person on supervised release to the district court for any other district to which the person is required to proceed as a condition of his probation or release, or is permitted to proceed, with the concurrence of such court. A later transfer of jurisdiction may be made in the same manner. A court to which jurisdiction is transferred under this section is authorized to exercise all powers over the probationer or releasee that are permitted by this subchapter or sub-chapter B or D of chapter 227.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“King’s probation officer asked the district court to modify King's supervised release conditions until the full revocation hearing.” Id. The district court refashioned the probation officer’s suggested temporary modification, and Kang did not object. Id. at 1125-26 . On appeal, King argued, inter alia, that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“King did not object to the refashioned condition” at the preliminary revocation hearing. Id. The panel went on to reject King's argument based on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(c), noting that rule”
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.