United States v. Marcus’s Empirical Analysis
628 F.3d 36 · 2010
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1462 · 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (§ 112 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) · 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (§ 112 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000)
Relies on Johnson v. United States · United States v. Cotton · Smith v. United States · Salinas v. United States · Garcia 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) there is an error; (2) the error is plain, that is, the error is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute; (3) the error affected the appellant’s substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means it affected the outcome of the district court proceedings; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Unlike with the forced labor charge, the conduct supporting the sex trafficking charge differed materially before and after [the date of enactment], such that there is a reasonable probability that the erroneous jury charge affected the outcome of the trial and affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the proceedings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person by any one of, or by any combination of, the following means — (1) by means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, or threats of physical restraint to that person or another person; (2) by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm to that person or another person; (3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process; or (4) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if that person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint....”
1 later decision 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.