United States v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis
621 F.3d 101 · 2010
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (§ 112 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) · 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Hernandez v. New York · Bolling v. Sharpe · Powers v. Ohio
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While one could fairly argue that the [ruling below] would be subject to a two-step review-clear error for factual findings and de novo for rulings of law-in this context the inquiries often are not clearly delineated. Accordingly, we conclude that the better course is to apply an abuse of discretion standard of review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the exercise of discretion based on clearly erroneous facts or incorrect rulings of law would necessarily constitute an abuse of discretion.”
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.