Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 615 F.2d 215 - United States v. Sander

United States v. Sander’s Empirical Analysis

615 F.2d 215 · 1980

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
2
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably United States v. Local of International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America Jw P (1985), United States v. Haimowitz (1984)

43 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

51019801990200020102020decided

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 Glasser v. United States · Stirone v. United States · Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer · Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · United States v. Summers

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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “... circumstances surrounding the alleged extortionate conduct that rendered the victim's fear of threatened loss reasonable.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. United States v. Billups · United States v. Local 560 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, Salvatore Provenzano, President, Joseph Sheridan, Vice-President, Josephine Provenzano Septembre, Sec-Treasurer, J.W. Dildine, Recording Secretary, Thomas Reynolds, Sr., Trustee, Stanley Jaronko, Trustee, Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc., Salvatore Provenzano, Employee Trustee, Thomas Reynolds, Sr., Employee Trustee, Local 560 Officers and Employees Severance Pay Plan, Salvatore Provenzano, Trustee and Administrator, Josephine P. Septembre, Trustee and Administrator, Anthony Provenzano, Individually, Nunzio Provenzano, Individually, Stephen Andretta, Individually, Thomas Andretta, Individually, Gabriel Briguglio, Individually. United States of America v. Local 560 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, Salvatore Provenzano, President, Joseph Sheridan, Vice-President, Josephine Provenzano Septembre, Sec-Treasurer, J.W. Dildine, Recording Secretary, Thomas Reynolds, Sr., Trustee, Stanley Jaronko, Trustee, Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc., Salvatore Provenzano, Employee Trustee, Thomas Reynolds, Sr., Employee Trustee, Local 560 Officers and Employees Severance Pay Plan, Salvatore Provenzano, Trustee and Administrator, Josephine P. Septembre, Trustee and Administrator, Anthony Provenzano, Individually, Nunzio Provenzano, Individually, Stephen Andretta, Individually, Thomas Andretta, Individually, Gabriel Briguglio, Individually. Appeal of Local Union No. 560, Appeal of Salvatore Provenzano, Joseph Sheridan, Jay Dildine, Josephine Provenzano, Thomas Reynolds, Michael Sciarra and Stanley Jaronko
  2. “Where there is an intrusion on the attorney-client relationship the remedy for such a violation is not dismissal but the suppression of any evidence so obtained. United States v. Kilrain, 566 F.2d 979 , 982 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 819 , 99 S.Ct. 80 , 58 L.Ed.2d 109 . United States v. Franklin, 598 F.2d 954 , 957 (5th Cir.1979). Appellant Sander made no showing of injury or prejudice because of the fact that his file at his attorney’s office was viewed by the El Paso police and the Court below properly denied his motion to dismiss.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The Hobbs Act ... is a broadly drawn statute. The cases construing the Act have repeatedly emphasized that the Congress, in passing the statute wanted to use all of the constitutional power it had to punish interference with interstate commerce by extortion, robbery or physical violence.”
    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.